THE   IRISH   REBELLION 
OF   1641 


THE  IRISH   REBELLION 
OF  1641 

WITH    A    HISTORY    OF   THE 

EVENTS  WHICH  LED  UP  TO 

AND  SUCCEEDED  IT 


BY  LORD  ERNEST  HAMILTON 

AUTHOB  OF  "  THE   FIRST  SBVEN  DIVISIONS,"    "  THI  SOUL  OF  UL8TEK,"   JSTC. 


NEW  YORK 
E.  P.  DUTTON  AND  COMPANY 

1920 


PREFACE 


THE  following  pages,  in  continuance  of  the  volume  devoted 
to  Elizabethan  Ulster,  aim  at  carrying  on  the  history  of 
the  province  up  to  the  time  of  the  Cromwellian  Settle- 
ment. In  the  middle  of  the  path  along  which  the  narrative 
travels  stands  the  Irish  rising  of  1641.  Many  writers,  in 
a  generous  reluctance  to  lay  bare  the  details  of  that  rising, 
have  skirted  the  subject  and  passed  on  to  the  wars  beyond. 
Others,  whose  subject  has  been  the  history  of  the  four 
provinces  rather  than  of  one  only,  have  contented  them- 
selves with  the  recital  of  a  few  disconnected  incidents 
which  occurred  during  the  first  nine  months  (i.e.  the 
massacre  period)  of  the  rising. 

In  a  history  which  gives  precedence  to  the  affairs  of 
Ulster  a  mere  superficial  survey  of  the  events  which — more 
than  any  others — have  helped  to  shape  the  destinies  of 
the  province  would  be  an  absurdity.  For  the  first  time, 
therefore,  the  main  incidents  of  the  rising  have  been 
ranged  in  chronological  order  and  presented  as  a  com- 
plete story.  These  incidents  furnish  a  very  dreadful 
picture,  but  it  is  a  picture  which  cannot  be  avoided  unless 
truth  is  to  be  designedly  pushed  out  of  sight  and  romance 
substituted  for  history.  If  any  good  resulted  from  such 
a  course  it  would  be  justified  and  might  even  be  desirable; 
but  it  is  quite  certain  that  good  does  not  arise  from  it — 
on  the  contrary,  much  evil. 

Where,  in  the  written  history  of  a  country,  the  balance 
of  rights  and  wrongs  is  purposely  upset,  a  false  perspec- 
tive is  created  which  cannot  fail  to  work  mischievously. 
No  matter  to  what  extent  British  historians — from  a 
mistaken  sense  of  generosity — may  suppress  certain  events 
in  Irish  history  which  reflect  discredit  on  the  native  race, 
it  is  quite  certain  that  the  same  will  never  be  done  on  the 
other  side.  There  is  not,  and  never  will  be,  any  suppres- 


2060813 


vi  PREFACE 

sion  of  similar  facts  which  reflect  discredit  on  the  British. 
These  are  mercilessly  made  the  most  of.  As  a  result  it 
comes  about  that  the  native,  or  Celtic,  Irish,  from  their 
earliest  childhood,  are  fed  on  legends  hi  which  their  an- 
cestors are  depicted  as  the  inoffensive  victims  of  English 
tyranny.  These  legends  are  taken  seriously  and  are 
believed.  The  passions  of  the  rising  generation  are  in- 
flamed by  the  harrowing  pictures  drawn  of  injuries  inflicted 
hi  the  past,  and  undying  hatred  of  England  follows. 
There  is  no  disposition  to  probe  into  the  truth  of  these 
romances ;  they  rank  as  dogma.  It  inevitably  follows 
that  the  truth,  when  plainly  put,  has  all  the  appearance 
of  a  malicious  libel,  and  as  such  is  bitterly  resented. 

Nevertheless,  it  is  certain  that  a  country,  no  less  than 
a  man  or  woman,  must  know  itself  before  it  can  claim 
the  right  to  judge  others.  Nor  is  there  any  reason  that 
self-knowledge  should  bring  with  it  any  sense  of  humili- 
ation. The  1641  massacres  are  no  greater  slur  on  the 
Irish  nation  than  the  Reign  of  Terror  is  on  the  French 
nation  or  Bolshevism  on  Russia  as  a  whole.  All  three 
represent  the  temporary  ascendancy  of  the  brute  element. 
The  chief  indictment  against  the  better-class  Irish  of  the 
seventeenth  century  is  one  of  moral  cowardice  in  shrinking 
from  the  suppression  of  outrages  of  which  they  at  heart 
disapproved.  Many  did  splendid  work  in  rescuing  the 
hunted  British,  but  none  had  the  courage  to  stand  up  to 
and  punish  the  ruffians  who  ruled  society. 

The  aim  of  the  following  pages  is  to  present  the  bald 
truth,  as  far  as  it  is  ascertainable  from  existing  records, 
without  any  white-washing  of  either  British  or  Irish 
excesses.  Among  the  works  of  reference  relating  to  the  first 
half  of  the  seventeenth  century,  Irish  writers  are  adequately 
represented.  With  the  cessation  of  the  calendared  State 
Papers,  the  historian  has  to  turn  for  his  material  to  letters 
and  contemporary  chronicles.  Richard  Bellings,  Colonel 
Henry  O'Neil,  Friar  O'Mellan,  The  Aphorismical  Discovery 
and  the  letters  of  Owen  Roe  give  us  the  Irish  side  of  the 
picture,  while  Carte,  Reid  and  Rushworth  furnish  us 
with  the  British  point  of  view.  For  the  details  of  the 
1641  rising,  in  Part  II,  we  are  almost  entirely  dependent 
on  British  evidence,  as  Irish  writers  pass  over  this  period 
hi  silence.  The  evidence  on  the  subject  is  in  the  form  of 
sworn  depositions  made  by  eye-witnesses  of  the  events 


PREFACE  vii 

which  they  describe.  There  are  thirty-two  volumes  of 
these  depositions  in  the  library  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin, 
and  they  unquestionably  furnish  evidence  as  reliable  as 
any  on  which  history  is  built  up.  In  apologetic  narratives 
of  the  rising  these  depositions  are  either  ignored  as  though 
they  did  not  exist,  or  else  are  disparaged  because  of  their 
British  origin.  One  or  other  of  these  courses  is  indeed 
forced  upon  any  writer  who  adopts  the  apologetic  attitude. 

Nevertheless,  a  careful  study  of  the  depositions  cannot 
fail  to  convince  any  open-minded  reader  of  their  reliability 
as  a  whole.  The  various  statements — taken  as  often  as 
not  in  different  parts  of  the  country  and  before  different 
commissioners — confirm  and  corroborate  one  another  in 
so  remarkable  a  way  that  it  is  impossible  to  doubt  their 
essential  truth.  Estimates  of  numbers  must,  in  many 
cases,  be  accepted  with  reserve,  and  discrepancies  in  the 
matter  of  dates  call  for  occasional  adjustment,  but  other- 
wise the  depositions  collectively  furnish  a  coherent  and, 
on  the  whole,  a  consistent  story  of  the  massacres  which 
accompanied  the  rising.  Some  few  are  of  an  hysterical 
and  obviously  exaggerated  character,  and  can  be  put 
aside;  others  furnish  mere  hearsay  evidence  and  can 
equally  be  put  aside;  but — even  with  all  such  eliminated 
— there  is  still  left  a  mass  of  first-hand  evidence,  supplied 
by  credible  witnesses,  which  can  bear  any  amount  of 
scrutiny. 

It  is  hardly  possible  to  doubt  that  the  story  furnished 
by  the  existing  depositions  is  an  under-statement  rather 
than  not  of  the  extent  and  ferocity  of  the  massacres 
of  1641  and  1642.  In  some  districts  there  were  no  sur- 
vivors left  to  depose.  Some  of  the  existing  witnesses 
died  of  the  treatment  they  received  before  they  could 
give  their  evidence.  The  story  must  necessarily  be  far 
from  complete,  but  even  as  far  as  it  goes  it  is  sufficient 
to  establish  the  fact  that  there  were  very  dreadful  and 
extensive  massacres  of  unoffending  men,  women  and 
children.  Then  came  the  reprisals,  which  must  inevit- 
ably follow  in  the  wake  of  such  deeds.  These  have  been 
graven  in  stone,  as  memorials  of  British  cruelty  to  the 
Irish,  as  unquestionably  they  would  have  been  had  the 
massacres  not  preceded  them.  In  the  light  of  the  massacres, 
however,  they  merely  appear  as  acts  of  just  retribution. 
The  age  was  an  age  of  brutality,  and,  when  the  sword 


viii  PREFACE 

was  once  unsheathed,  many  deeds  were  done  on  both 
sides  which  hardly  bear  contemplation.  If  there  is  a 
deliberate  suppression  of  some  of  these  deeds  and  a  cor- 
responding advertisement  of  others,  a  false  impression 
of  injustice  is  at  once  created. 

Three  hundred  years  hence  the  peace  terms  of  1919 
would  read  as  cruel  and  tyrannous  were  the  previous 
deeds  of  Germany  deliberately  suppressed.  A  German 
would  read  them  with  a  growing  sense  of  wrong  and  of 
hatred  against  the  nations  responsible  for  them.  Only 
by  a  full  revelation  of  all  the  facts  bearing  on  the  situation 
can  such  a  sense  of  wrong  be  cleared  away  and  a  better 
understanding  established.  The  moment  there  comes  a 
realisation  of  faults,  weaknesses,  crimes  and  cruelty  on 
both  sides,  a  truer  sense  of  values  must  follow,  and  much 
of  the  bitterness  which  is  born  of  ignorance  will  pass  away 
for  ever.  A  few  fanatical  patriots  may  still  rave  of 
ancient  wrongs,  but  the  great  mass  of  reasoning  citizens 
will  realise  that  their  perspective  has  been  faulty  and  will 
admit  just  cause. 


CONTENTS 


PART   I 

O'DOGHERTY' S  REBELLION  AND  THE   ULSTER 
PLANTATION 

CHAPTER    I 

ULSTER   UNDER   JAMES   I 

James  I's  tolerant  attitude  towards  the  native  Irish — Chichester's 
conformity — Growth  of  the  native  population — The  plantation  of  Down 
and  Antrim — Difficulties  in  regard  to  the  six  escheated  counties — The 
Roscommon  plantation  of  the  Graemes — Its  failure — The  influence  of 
O'Dogherty's  rebellion  on  the  fate  of  Ulster  ....  pp.  3-11 


CHAPTER    II 

SIR  CAHIR  O'DOGHERTY'S  REBELLION 

Sir  Cahir  O'Dogherty — His  position  in  Ulster — His  discontent — The 
case  of  Inch  Island — Neil  Garv  O'Donnell — His  arrest  and  confinement — 
He  breaks  his  parole — His  evil  influence  on  O'Dogherty — His  treachery — 
O'Dogherty's  rebellion — Seizure  of  Hart  and  his  wife  at  Buncrana — 
Capture  of  Culmore  Fort — Capture  of  Derry  and  death  of  Paulett — Dis- 
creditable behaviour  of  Neil  Garv — Failure  of  the  rebellion — Co-operation 
of  Shane  Carragh  O'Cahan  and  Oghie  Oge  O'Hanlon — Indecision  of  the 
Pale  Lords — Rumours  of  Tyrone's  return  .  .  .  pp.  12—23 


CHAPTER    III 

SUPPRESSION   OF   O'DOGHERTY'S   REBELLION 

Chichester's  prompt  action  in  repressing  the  rebellion — Co-operation  of 
Sir  Henry  Oge  and  Tirlough  McArt — Neil  Garv's  position — Recapture  of 
Culmore  Fort — Death  of  Sir  Henry  Oge — O'Dogherty  retreats  to  Glenveagh 
— Surrender  of  Birt  Castle — Ridgeway  pursues  O'Dogherty  to  Glenveagh 
— O'Dogherty's  flight — Treacherous  conduct  of  Neil  Garv — His  arrest — 
O'Dogherty  in  Tyrone — Death  of  O'Dogherty — Surrender  of  Dogh  Castle — 
Trial  and  execution  of  Shane  Carragh — Executions  at  Coleraine  and 
Lifford— Shane  McManus  Oge— Capture  of  Tory  Island— Neil  Garv  and 
Sir  Donnell  O'Cahan  in  the  Tower  .  .  .  .  .  pp.  24-35 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER    IV 

THE   ULSTER   PLANTATION 

The  Ulster  Plantation — The  case  of  Co.  Monaghan — The  case  of  the  six 
escheated  counties — Difficulties  in  connection  with  the  chiefs — Ridgeway's 
and  Bodley's  Survey — Division  of  the  six  counties — Undertakers  and 
Servitors — Their  rents  and  obligations — Misleading  nature  of  Bodley's 
Survey — "  Profitable  "  and  "  unprofitable  "  lands  .  .  pp.  36-43 


« 


CHAPTER    V 

CHICHESTER' s  POLICY 

Chichester  sends  6,000  Irish  to  the  Swedish  wars — Effects  of  the  Planta- 
tion on  the  natives — The  custom  of  gavelkind — Hostility  of  the  chiefs  to 
the  Plantation — The  "  Woodkerne  " — Chichester's  religious  aims — Fine 
for  non-attendance  at  church — Ploughing  by  the  tail  .  pp.  44-49 

CHAPTER   VI 

PROGRESS  OF  THE  PLANTATION 

Distribution  of  Co.  Donegal — Distribution  of  Co.  Tyrone — Sir  Henry 
Oge  and  Tirlough  McArt — Distribution  of  Co.  Armagh — The  case  of  Co. 
Fermanagh — The  portions  of  Connor  Roe  and  Brian  Maguire— Co.  Cavan 
and  the  O'Reillys — The  case  of  Co.  Coleraine — Sir  Donnell  O'Cahan — The 
Plantation  of  the  London  City  Companies — The  "  Liberties  "  of  London- 
derry and  Coleraine — Rory  O'Cahan's  rebellion — Execution  of  Rory 
O'Cahan  and  Brian  Crossach — Pynnar's  Survey — The  case  of  the 
Brownlows pp.  50-61 

CHAPTER    VII 

GROWTH    OF   THE    RACIAL    PROBLEM 

Ennoblement  of  the  Ulster  magnates — Hatred  of  the  native  Irish  for  the 
British  colonists — Insufficiency  of  the  lands  allotted  to  them — Retirement 
of  Chichester — His  death — Character  of  Arthur  Chichester — His  grants  of 
land — Reasons  for  his  unpopularity — Comparisons  with  Cromwell — Increase 
in  the  number  of  the  Ulster  colonists — Regulations  against  intermarriage 
with  the  natives pp.  62-68 


CHAPTER    VIII 

THE    FINANCES    OF   THE   STUARTS 

Difficulties  of  State  Finance  during  Elizabeth's  reign — Prodigality  of 
James  I — His  questionable  methods  of  finance — General  discontent — 
Death  of  James  I — Continued'  extravagance  of  Charles  I — Death  of 
Buckingham — Revolt  of  the  Covenanters — March  of  the  Scots  into  Eng- 
land— Defeat  of  Lord  Conway  at  Newburn — Submission  of  the  King  to  the 
Scotch  demands — Charles  I's  exactions  from  Ireland — The  case  of  Sir 
Archibald  Acheson  and  Sir  John  Hume — The  first  subsidy  and  the 
"  Graces  "—Sir  Thomas  Wentworth  as  Deputy— General  increase  of  rents 


CONTENTS  xi 

— Demand  for  six  new  subsidies — Postponement  of  the  "  Graces  " — 
The  King  sues  the  London  Companies — Wentworth  is  created  Earl  of 
Strafford — Execution  of  Strafford — Parsons  and  Borlase  Lords  Justices — 
Petition  of  the  Knights,  Citizens  and  Burgesses  of  Ireland — Strafford  and 
the  flax  trade — His  hatred  of  the  Presbyterians — The  High  Commission 
Court — The  Black  Oath — Its  despotic  enforcement  in  Ulster — Laxity  of 
the  Episcopalian  clergy — The  Milk  Tithe — Strafford's  Roman  Catholio 
Army pp.  69-87 


PART    II 

THE  IRISH  RISING  OF  1641,  WITH  A  DETAILED 
ACCOUNT    OF    THE   MASSACRES 

CHAPTER    I 

HISTORICAL   REVIEW 

Review  of  political  factions  in  Ireland  and  their  effect  on  history. 

pp.  91-94 

CHAPTER    II 

THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  REBELLION 

The  causes  of  the  rising — Pre-war  condition  of  Ireland — Sir  Phelim 
O'Neil — His  estates — His  indebtedness  to  the  English  Government — Lord 
Maguire — Connor  Roe  and  Brian  Maguire — Their  estates  in  Fermanagh — 
The  tanistry  system  and  its  disastrous  consequences — Sir  John  Davies  on 
the  Irish  exactions — Condemnation  of  the  massacres  by  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  in  Ireland — The  Multifarnham  Edict — The  first  endeavour 
at  extermination  without  bloodshed — Reasons  for  its  failure — Maiming 
and  mutilation — The  dilemma  of  the  Pale  Lords — Ill-feeling  between  the 
Pale  Lords  and  the  native  Irish pp.  95-112 


CHAPTER    III 

APOLOGETIC    VIEW   OF   THE    RISING 

The  pretended  causes  of  the  rising — Their  insufficiency — Intrigues  of 
Charles  I  with  the  Irish — Sir  Phelim's  forged  commission — The  "  Scotch 
Peril  "  examined — Mr.  Lecky's  attitude  in  the  matter — The  exemption  of 
the  Scots  from  the  first  massacres — Lord  Maguire's  statement — Early 
warnings  of  the  intended  rising — Weakness  of  Mr.  Lecky's  arguments — 
The  famine  of  1603 — Brian  Me  Art — Attempts  to  identify  the  victims  of 
the  massacres  with  the  Roundheads — Mr.  Lecky's  inconsistencies — The 
Lagan  Force  and  its  rescue  work — Evidence  of  the  depositions. 

pp.  113-128 


xii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER    IV 

BETRAYAL   OF   THE   PLOT 

The  Acts  of  Limitation  and  Relinquishment— Roger  Moore— The 
first  intentions  of  the  originators  of  the  rising — Discovery  of  the  plot  by 
Owen  O'Connelly — Arrest  of  Lord  Maguire  and  Hugh  Oge  McMahon — 
Attitude  of  the  Pale  Lords pp.  129-134 

CHAPTER   V 

DETAILS   OF   THE   RISING   IN   ULSTER 

The  Ulster  rising — Surprise  and  seizure  of  Dungannon,  Mount  joy  and 
Charlemont — Sir  Phelim  O'Neil  reads  his  false  proclamation  in  Armagh — 
The  British  take  refuge  in  Armagh  church — Seizure  of  Newry  and  Tanda- 
ragee — Fate  of  Lady  Blayney  and  her  two  sons — The  case  of  Glasslough — 
Honourable  conduct  of  Neil  McCann — Massacre  at  Corbridge — Acrashanig 
— Massacre  at  Clones — Rory  Maguire's  dinner  at  Crevenish — Alleged  reasons 
for  Sir  William  Cole's  failure  to  warn  the  Ulster  colonists — His  able  defence 
of  Enniskillen — Massacre  at  Shannoth — Massacre  at  Lisnaskea — Loyalty 
of  Brian  Maguire  of  Tempo pp.  135-148 

CHAPTER   VI 

THE   REBELLION   IN   CAVAN 

The  county  of  Cavan — Humanity  of  the  O'Reillys — Exodus  of  the 
Belturbet  British  towards  Dublin — Their  terrible  sufferings — Congestion 
and  mortality  in  Dublin — Bishop  Bedell — His  imprisonment  and  death — 
The  defence  of  Keilagh  and  Croughan  Castles — Defeat  of  Edmund  O'Reilly 
by  Sir  Francis  Hamilton  and  Sir  James  Craig — Assault  of  Keilagh  by 
Mulmore  O'Reilly — The  assault  repulsed — Massacre  at  Belturbet — Indig- 
nation of  Philip  McHugh  O'Reilly — Rose  ny  Neil's  cruelty — Retaliatory 
raid  from  Keilagh  and  Croughan — Death  of  Sir  James  Craig — Surrender 
of  Keilagh  and  Croughan  Castles — The  garrisons  escorted  to  Drogheda  by 
the  O'Reillys pp.  149-160 

CHAPTER    VII 

THE   POSITION   IN   DOWN   AND   ANTRIM 

Down  and  Antrim — News  of  the  rising  is  brought  to  the  Bishop  of  Down 
— Concentration  of  the  Down  and  Antrim  colonists — Robert  Lawson's 
defence  of  Lisburn — Discomfiture  of  Sir  Con  Magennis — Successful  defence 
of  Dromore  by  Colonel  Matthews — Its  capture  by  Sir  Con  Magennis — 
Humane  conduct  of  Sir  Con  Magennis  and  his  brother  Daniel  of  Glasroe — 
Defence  force  raised  by  Archibald  Stewart  of  Ballintoy — Inclusion  of  an 
Irish  Company — James  and  Alastair  McCollkittagh  .  .  pp.  161-167 

CHAPTER    VIII 

THE   SIEGE   OF   DROGHEDA 

The  siege  of  Drogheda — Weakness  of  Sir  Faithful  Fortescue — Lord 
Moore's  energetic  action— Sir  Henry  Tichborne  appointed  Governor  in 
place  of  Fortescue — Reinforcements  from  Dublin — Sir  Phelim  assumes 
charge  of  siege  operations — He  captures  Mellifont  Abbey — Defeat  of  the 
British  relief  force  at  Julianstown  .  ....  pp.  168-171 


CONTENTS  xiit 

CHAPTER    IX 

ARMAGH  UNDER  SIR  PHELIM'S  RULE 

Surrender  of  Lurgan  to  Toole  McCann — Hia  cruelty  and  treachery — 
Reticence  of  Sir  William  Brownlow — Surrender  of  the  refugees  in  Armagh 
church — Atrocities  in  Loughgall  church — Probability  of  Sir  Phelini's  in- 
nocence in  the  matter — Murder  of  Mr.  James  Maxwell  and  his  wife — 
Murder  of  Mr.  Fuller-ton  and  Captain  Price — Murder  of  all  Sir  Phelim'a 
creditors — His  failure  to  rebuke  or  punish  those  guilty  of  atrocities — 
Appalling  tortures  inflicted  on  those  who  concealed  their  valuables. 

pp.  172-179 

CHAPTER   X 

OPERATIONS   IN   ARMAGH 

Sir  Phelim  attacks  Lisburn  with  a  large  army — His  defeat  by  Tyringham 
and  Rawdon — Ill-effects  of  the  defeat  on  his  nature — His  savagery  aroused 
— Massacre  at  Kilmore — Courageous  conduct  of  Mrs.  Doyne  pp.  1 80-1 84 

CHAPTER   XI 

OPERATIONS    IN    TYRONE 

Dispute  between  Cole  and  Hamilton  as  to  warning  given  to  Ulster 
— The  raising  of  the  Lagan  Force — Perilous  position  of  Sir  Ralph  Gore's 
regiment — Audley  Mervyn  takes  over  Gore's  regiment — Sir  William  and 
Sir  Robert  Stewart — Flight  of  Sir  Thomas  Staples  from  Cookstown — Seizure 
of  Moneymore  and  Lissan — Flight  of  the  colonists  to  Londonderry  and 
Coleraine — Preparations  for  defence  of  Londonderry — Successful  defence 
of  Augher  Castle — Sir  Phelim's  repulse  from  Castlederg — His  insensate 
fury — Second  attack  on  Augher  by  Sir  Phelim  and  Rory  Maguire — Com- 
plete repulse  of  the  assailants — Sir  Phelim's  revenge — Many  intended 
victims  rescued  by  Henry  O'Neil  of  Glasdromin  and  Tirlough  Oge — R»ry 
Maguire's  repulse  from  Aghentain  Castle  .  .  .  pp.  185—193 

CHAPTER    XII 

CHRISTMAS    1641   IN   ULSTER 

Relief  of  Augher  and  Aghentain  by  Colonel  Saunderson — Massacre 
at  Lisgool  House — Massacre  at  Monea  and  Tully  Castles — Defeat  of  Rory 
Maguire  on  his  way  home — Massacre  at  Kinard — Massacre  at  Portadown 
Bridge — Massacres  at  Ballinrosse  and  Carrickmacross  .  pp.  194-201 

CHAPTER   XIII 

PROGRESS   OF   THE   REBELLION   IN   ANTRIM 

Siege  of  Artagarvey  House — Massacre  at  Portna — Massacre  at  Bally- 
money — Repulse  of  the  rebels  from  Ballintoy  House  and  Dunluce — 
Massacre  at  Oldstone  House — Murders  at  Ballycastle — Supposed  guilt  of 
Lady  Antrim — Fate  of  the  women  and  children  belonging  to  the  defence 
forces — Retaliatory  massacre  of  Irish  at  Templepatrick  and  Magee  Island 
— Date  of  the  massacres — Incorrect  statements  made  in  patriotic  literature 
— Conclusive  evidence  of  the  "  Irish  Remonstrances  "  as  to  date — Con- 
sideration of  the  numbers  killed  at  Magee  Island  .  .  pp.  202-212 


3dv  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER   XIV 

PROGRESS  OF  THE  REBELLION  DURING  FEBRUARY  1642 
Congestion  and  mortality  in  Coleraine — Defeat  of  Colonel  Rowley  at 
Garvagh  by  Cormac  O'Hagan — Defeat  of  Archibald  Stewart  at  Bundoo- 
ragh— Attack  on  Antrim  by  Tirlough  Oge— His  defeat  and  flight— Mas- 
sacres at  Moneymore  and  Lissan — Lady  Staples's  account  —  Massacre 
at  Kilmore — Four-and- twenty  burned  alive  in  Mrs.  Smith's  cottage — 
Trying  experiences  of  Joan  Constable  .  .  .  .  pp.  213-218 


CHAPTER   XV 

THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  AND  THE  MASSACRES 
Attempt  to  introduce  religion  as  an  incentive  to  Anglophobia — Con- 
demnation by  the  General  Assembly  of  Roman  Catholic  Bishops  and 
clergy  of  the  atrocities  practised  on  the  British — Increase  in  the  massacres 
during  the  spring  of  1642 — Sir  Phelim's  offer  to  convoy  the  British  to 
safety — Massacres  at  Portadown  and  Scarva — Lough  Kernan  massacre — 
Estimate  of  numbers  drowned  in  the  Bann — Estimate  of  numbers  drowned 
in  the  Blackwater,  Tollwater  and  Callan — Three  hundred  drowned  in  a 
mill-pool  *in  Killyman — Murder  of  Lord  Caulfield  and  fifty  others  at 
Kinard pp.  219-226 


CHAPTER   XVI 

ORMONDE'S  CAMPAIGN  IN  MEATH 

Siege  of  Drogheda — Relief  ship  enters  the  Boyne — Five  hundred  picked 
men  surprise  the  town  but  fail  to  capture  it — Famine  in  Drogheda — Success- 
ful raid  by  Captain  Trevor — Two  more  relief  ships  enter  the  Boyne — Sir 
Phelim  takes  over  command  and  orders  a  general  assault — The  assault 
fails — Ormonde  marches  north — End  of  the  siege — Ormonde's  movements 
handicapped  by  the  Lords  Justices — Doubts  as  to  his  own  aims  in  the 
matter — Tichborne  carries  Dundalk  by  assault  .  .  pp.  227-232 


CHAPTER   XVII 

THE  LANDING   OF   MONRO 

General  Robert  Monro  lands  at  Carrickforgus — Advance  towards  Ne1? 


behaviour — The  Killeevan  Decree — Terrible  massacres  in  and  around 
Armagh — Murder  of  Mr.  Tutch  and  others  by  Sir  Con  Magennis — Hia 
remorse — Probable  reason  for  Sir  Con's  action — Massacre  at  Tandaragee — 
Friendly  attitude  of  Hugh  O'Conolly,  Governor  of  Armagh — Sir  Phelim 
decides  on  the  destruction  of  Armagh — The  British  residents  sent  away 
under  escort — Wholesale  massacres  of  the  convoys — Many  saved  by 
Alexander  Hoveden  and  Sir  Phelim's  mother — Three  hundred  British 
massacred  in  Killyman  by  Manus  O'Cahan — Massacre  in  Creevelough — 
Massacre  in  Armagh — Sixty  burned  alive  in  Blackwater  church — Exter- 
mination of  the  British  in  the  Fews — Rescue  work  by  Henry  O'Neil  of 
Glasdromin — Massacre  in  Tynan — Extermination  of  the  Kilmore  British. 

pp.  233-245 


CONTENTS  xv 


CHAPTER    XVIII 

THE   NUMBER   OF   VICTIMS   CONSIDERED 

Computation  of  the  numbers  who  perished  in  the  massacres — Absurdly 
exaggerated  figures  put  forward  at  the  time — The  cases  of  Killyman,  Clon- 
feacle  and  Tullahogue — Rescue  of  many  British  by  Daniel  O'Hagan — 
The  case  of  the  three  southern  counties — British  survivors  found  in  Co. 
Monaghan  by  Lord  Conway — Down  and  Antrim — Lack  of  details — 
Fictitious  battle  atDeirendreiat — Contemporary  account  of  state  of  Antrim 
— Terrible  condition  of  those  who  were  prisoners  with  the  Irish — Experi- 
ences of  Lady  Blayney  and  Mrs.  Price — Consideration  of  British  reprisals. 

pp.  246-257 


PART    III 
THE   CIVIL  WARS   IN    ULSTER 

CHAPTER    I 

THE   TURN   OF  THE   TIDE 

Monro  returns  to  Carrickfergus — Criticisms  on  the  barrenness  of  his 
performances — His  expedition  into  Antrim — Urgent  need  for  his  presence 
there — The  Earl  of  Antrim  rides  from  Dublin  to  Dunluce — His  friendliness 
to  the  beleaguered  garrison  at  Coleraine — His  arrest  by  Monro  and  sub- 
sequent escape — Monro  lies  for  two  months  in  Dunluce  doing  nothing — 
Famine  in  Co.  Antrim — Activity  of  the  Lagan  Force — Sir  Phelim's  efforts 
to  crush  it — Battle  of  Glenmaquin — Defeat  of  Sir  Phelim — Capture  of 
Strabane  by  the  Stewarts — The  Lagan  Force  in  Co.  Londonderry — 
Overwhelming  defeat  of  Manus  O'Cahan — Capture  of  Dungiven  Castle 
and  execution  of  O'Cahan — Belief  of  Coleraine — Remarkable  achievements 
of  the  Lagan  Force pp.  261-270 

CHAPTER    II 

BRITISH    RELIEF    FORCES    IN    ARMAGH    AND    TYRONE 

Monro  moves  south — Lord  Conway  captures  Kinard  and  releases  200 
prisoners — Capture  of  Dungannon  by  Sir  William  Brownlow — Supposed 
impregnability  of  Charlemont — Capture  of  Mount  joy  by  Colonel  Clot- 
worthy — Capture  of  Sir  Phelim's  fleet  of  boats — Rescue  of  prisoners  from 
Moneymore  and  surrounding  district  ....  pp.  271—274 


CHAPTER    III 

THE   LANDING   OF   OWEN   ROE 

Unexpected  duration  of  the  rebellion — Causes  of  the  same — Change  of 
masters  and  absence  of  pay — Landing  of  Owen  Roe — His  immediate  elec- 
tion as  Commander-in-Chief — His  emphatic  condemnation  of  the  massacres 
— His  military  abilities  and  unswerving  integrity — Three  ships  from  Spain 
reach  Ireland  with  war  material pp.  276-280 


xvi  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER    IV 

GENERAL  HOSTILITY  TO   OWEN   ROE 

The  Supreme  Council  of  Confederate  Catholics — Its  hostility  to  Owen 
Roe — Landing  of  Colonel  Thomas  Preston  accompanied  by  nineteen  trans- 
ports— Sir  Phelim  marries  Preston's  daughter — Control  of  the  Irish  armies 
passes  into  the  hands  of  the  Supreme  Council — Change  of  programme — 
Distrust  of  Owen  Roe  and  the  native  Irish  by  the  Lords  of  the  Pale — Dread 
of  his  ascendency — The  native  Irish  programme — Its  danger  to  the  Anglo- 
Irish — Defeat  of  Preston  by  the  British  at  Ballynakill  and  Mullingar — 
Owen  Roe  defeated  by  Monro  at  Anaghsamrie — Raiding  expedition  by 
Chichester  and  Montgomery — Owen  Roe  pressed  for  food — He  decides  to 
retire  to  Leinster pp.  281-291 

CHAPTER   V 

THE   CESSATION   OF   1643 

The  Cessation  of  1643 — Understanding  between  Ormonde  and  the 
Supreme  Council — Unhappy  predicament  of  Owen  Roe — Slaughter  of  his 
harvesters — The  King's  reason  for  insisting  on  a  Cessation — Ormonde's 
terms — Failure  of  the  Supreme  Council  to  furnish  Irish  troops  for  England 
— Ormonde  sends  over  two  contingents  of  English  troops — Their  defeat  by 
Fairfax — Food  difficulties  in  Ulster — Serious  position  of  the  garrisons. 

pp.  292-296 

CHAPTER   VI 

THE  SOLEMN  LEAGUE  AND  COVENANT 

The  Solemn  League  and  Covenant — The  Members  of  the  House  of  Com- 
mons take  the  Covenant — Enthusiasm  in  London  and  the  Eastern  Counties 
— Delegates  visit  Ulster — Conversion  of  Monro  and  the  Lagan  Force — 
Londonderry  takes  the  Covenant — Coleraine,  Lisburn  and  Belfast  the  only 
towns  which  hold  out — Belfast  surprised  by  Monro — Concentration  of 
British  forces  at  Armagh — Colonel  Matthews  at  Newry  defies  Monro — 
Lord  Castlehaven  appointed  Commander-in-Chief  of  the  Ulster  Irish — 
Indignation  of  Owen  Roe — Ormonde  furnishes  Castlehaven  with  supplies 
— Inchiquin  joins  the  Parliament  and  raids  Cork — His  ferocity  against  the 
native  Irish — Skirmish  at  Dromore — Castlehaven  retreats  to  Charlemont — 
Monro  at  Armagh —  Quarrel  between  Castlehaven  and  Owen  Roe — 
Castlehaven  withdraws  into  Leinster  .  .  .  .pp.  297-308 

CHAPTER   VII 

THE   OXFORD   CONVENTION   OF   1644 

The  Oxford  Convention — Attempt  to  reconcile  all  Irish  parties — Un- 
reasonableness of  the  demands  made — Hopeless  breakdown  of  the  Con- 
vention— It  reassembles  in  Dublin  with  no  better  success — Absence  of 
fighting  in  1645 — The  difficulties  of  the  Lagan  Force  as  regards  pay — 
Their  memorandum  to  Parliament — Their  refusal  to  obey  Sir  Charles 
Coote — Coote  and  Sir  Francis  Hamilton  invade  Connaught — Capture  of 
Sligo — Saunderson's  regiment  left  in  garrison — Ormonde  authorises  Lord 
Taafe  to  raise  a  Connaught  army — Recapture  of  Connaught  with  the 
exception  of  Sligo — Siege  of  Sligo — Rout  of  Taafe's  army — Death  of  the 
Archbishop  of  Tuam — Parliamentary  pay  for  the  Lagan  Force — Audley 
Mervyn  removed  from  Derry  and  Lord  Conway  from  the  command  of  his 
regiment pp.  309-317 


CONTENTS  xvii 

CHAPTER    VIII 

GLAMORGAN'S  MISSION  TO  IRELAND 

The  Earl  of  Glamorgan — His  secret  arrangement  with  the  King — Extra- 
ordinary powers  conferred  upon  him — Unfortunate  effect  on  the  public 
mind  of  the  King's  intrigues  with  the  Irish — Richard  Bellings's  mission  to 
Rome — Giovanni  Rinuccini — Glamorgan's  secret  treaty  with  Rinuccini — 
Document  discovered  on  the  Archbishop  of  Tuam's  body — Public  indigna- 
tion— Charles's  repudiation  of  Glamorgan  .  .  -pp.  318-323 

CHAPTER    IX 

OWEN   ROE'S   RUPTURE   WITH  THE   SUPREME   COUNCIL 

Depredations  committed  by  Owen  Roe's  men — His  indignation — He  is 
appointed  to  the  command  of  the  Ulster  army — His  preparations  in  Cavan 
— Battle  of  Benburb — Complete  defeat  of  Monro — Owen  Roe  fails  to  follow 
up  his  victory — Reasons  for  the  same — The  Nuncio  summons  Owen  Roe 
to  Kilkenny — Supreme  Council  arrange  a  peace  with  Ormonde — Indigna- 
tion of  Owen  Roe  and  Rinuccini — They  march  against  the  Supreme  Council 
— Sack  of  Roscrea  by  Owen  Roe — Surrender  of  Kilkenny — The  Nuncio 
imprisons  the  Supreme  Council  and  appoints  fresh  members — Preston  and 
Owen  Roe  besiege  Ormonde  in  Dublin — Mutual  hatred  between  Owen  Roe 
and  Preston — Ormonde  applies  for  help  to  the  Parliament  and  to  Monro — 
Inability  of  the  latter  to  move — Conway's  regiment  ravages  South  Ulster 
— Capture  of  Kells  by  Owen  Roe — Parliamentary  reinforcements  refused 
admission  to  Dublin,  Belfast  and  Carrickfergus — Desperate  condition  of 
Ormonde  in  Dublin — He  hands  over  the  Sword  to  Michael  Jones  and 
sails  for  England pp.  324-334 


CHAPTER    X 

IRELAND   UNDER   THE    PARLIAMENT 

Jones  inspects  the  British  forces  at  Drogheda — Preston  seizes  Naas  and 
attempts  the  capture  of  Trim — Battle  of  Dungan  Hill — Annihilation  of 
Preston's  army — Recall  of  Owen  Roe  from  Connaught — He  besieges  Jones 
in  Dublin — Owen  Roe  burns  the  Pale  Lords'  property — And  is  in  con- 
sequence denounced  as  a  traitor  by  the  Supreme  Council — Battle  of 
Knocknoness — Owen  Roe  attempts  the  surprise  of  Lisburn — His  defeat 
by  Colonel  Conway's  regiment — He  withdraws  with  his  army  into  Leinster 
and  thence  into  Munster — He  is  chased  out  by  Inchiquin — Rupture  between 
the  Nuncio  and  his  new  Supreme  Council  .  .  .  pp.  335—342 


CHAPTER    XI 

THE   POLITICAL   CONSCIENCE   OF   THE   ULSTER   SCOTS 

Growing  dislike  of  the  Ulster  Scots  for  the  Parliament — Dominance  of 
the  Independents — Their  repudiation  of  the  Covenant — The  Isle  of  Wight 
Treaty — Growing  sympathy  of  the  Presbyterians  for  the  King — The  Carrick- 
fergus garrison  defies  Monck — Monck  arrests  Monro — Monro's  five  years' 
imprisonment  in  the  Tower — Arrest  of  Sir  Robert  Stewart  and  Audley 
Mervyn — Revolt  of  Enniskillen  against  the  Parliament — Ormonde  lands 

2 


Xviii  CONTENTS 

at  Cork — He  assumes  control  of  the  Supreme  Council — Indignation  in 
Ulster  at  the  King's  execution — Proclamation  by  the  Belfast  Presbytery — 
Charles  II  proclaimed  King  by  the  Scots — Envoys  to  the  Hague — The 
Lagan  Force  joins  the  Royalists  and  besieges  Coote  in  Derry — The  siege  of 
Deny — Sir  George  Monro  joins  the  besiegers — Montgomery's  treacherous 
seizure  of  Carrickfergus — Indignation  of  the  Belfast  Presbytery — Alarm 
at  the  co-operation  of  Sir  George  Monro's  Roman  Catholic  army — Envoys 
sent  to  Derry — Disappointment  at  the  King's  failure  to  take  the  Covenant 
— The  Lagan  Force  abandon  the  siege  ....  pp.  343-357 


CHAPTER    XII 

THE   RISE    AND    FALL    OF    ORMONDE 

James  Butler,  Marquis  of  Ormonde — His  untiring  energy  in  the  King's 
cause — Owen  Roe  a  free-lance — Both  parties  bid  for  his  services — Failure 
of  the  first  negotiations — Arrangement  arrived  at  with  Monck,  who 
supplies  Owen  Roe  with  powder — Overthrow  of  Owen  Roe's  men  and  loss 
of  the  powder — Capture  by  the  Royalists  of  Drogheda  and  Dundalk — The 
Parliamentary  troops  join  the  Royalists — Coote  comes  to  terms  with  Owen 
Roe,  who  marches  to  the  relief  of  Derry — Abandonment  of  the  siege — 
Defeat  of  Ormonde  at  Rathmines — Cromwell  lands  in  Ireland — The  sack 
of  Drogheda pp.  358-369 


CHAPTER    XIII 

THE   END    OF   THE   IRISH   WARS 

Colonel  Venables's  expedition  into  Ulster — Skirmish  at  Dromore — Owen 
Roe  remains  at  Ballykelly  waiting  to  be  paid  by  Coote — His  negotiations 
with  Ormonde — He  journeys  south  again — Death  of  Owen  Roe — His 
character — Reasons  for  his  failure — Sir  George  Monro  captures  Antrim 
and  Lisburn — Death  of  Owen  O'Conolly — Surrender  of  Carrickfergus — 
Defeat  of  Montgomery  by  Coote  and  Venables — The  Bishop  of  Clogher 
elected  to  fill  Owen  Roe's  place — His  descent  on  Co.  Londonderry — Capture 
and  recapture  of  Castle  Toome — Coote's  precarious  position  in  Derry — He 
appeals  to  Venables  for  reinforcements — Battle  of  Scarriffhollis — Execu- 
tion of  Emer  McMahon — Flight  of  Sir  Phelim  to  Charlemont — Capture 
of  Charlemont — Sir  Phelim  and  his  garrison  allowed  to  march  out  with 
their  arms — Capture  of  Sir  Phelim  by  Lord  Caulfield — His  execution — His 
character  considered — Conclusion  of  the  Ulster  wars  .  pp.  370-384 

INDEX •    r-        .    A    .    pp.  385-401 


PART  I 

O'DOGHERTY'S  REBELLION  AND  THE   ULSTER 
PLANTATION 


CHAPTER  I 

ULSTER   UNDER   JAMES    I 

WITH  the  flight  of  the  Earls  of  Tyrone  and  Tyrconnell 
in  the  autumn  of  1607,  the  main  cause  of  unrest  in  Ulster 
passed  away  for  ever,  for,  with  the  two  chiefs,  went  the 
contentious  titles  of  O'Neil  and  O'Donnell,  never  destined 
to  be  revived. 

For  some  years  prior  to  the  sensational  disappearance 
of  the  last  two  representatives  of  the  feudal  system  in 
Ulster,  the  province — under  a  more  democratic  dispen- 
sation introduced  from  England — had  been  happily  free 
from  all  the  cruder  horrors  incidental  upon  barbaric 
warfare.  With  the  settled  establishment  of  peace,  the 
general  economic  conditions  began  steadily  to  improve. 
Ever  since  the  contrite  Tyrone  had  gone  down  on  his  knees 
before  Mount  joy  at  Melifont  on  April  8,  1603,  the  Ulster 
population,  and  the  food  supplies  on  which  the  Ulster  popu- 
lation were  dependent,  had  been  gradually  recovering  from 
the  terrible  inroads  consequent  upon  a  ten  years'  rebellion 
in  which  both  sides  had  made  free  use  of  fire  and  sword. 
With  the  submission  of  Tyrone,  the  engines  of  destruction 
had  been  laid  aside,  and  the  minds  of  all  become  concen- 
trated on  the  work  of  repair.  Tyrone  himself — to  the 
amazement  of  all  parties  and  to  the  unbounded  indignation 
of  such  chiefs  as  had  remained  loyal — had  not  only  been 
fully  pardoned  for  all  past  offences,  but  had  even  been 
reinstated  in  all  his  old  territorial  rights.  This  mistaken 
policy — in  the  main  attributable  to  James  I's  natural 
hatred  of  his  predecessor  on  the  throne,  and  his  consequent 
sympathy  with  any  and  all  who  had  annoyed  her — pro- 
duced the  usual  disastrous  results.  Tyrone,  interpreting 
the  King's  leniency  as  fear,  at  once  started  hatching  a 
fresh  rebellion  in  which  the  newly  created  Earl  of  Tyrconnell 
was  his  fellow-conspirator.  Nor  was  this  the  only  trouble. 
The  restoration  of  Tyrone's  old  lands  and  privileges, 

3 


4  ULSTER  UNDER  JAMES  I  [CHAP,  i 

and  the  sudden  elevation  into  favour  of  Tyrconnell,  had 
only  been  made  possible  by  the  partial  sacrifice  of  the 
minor  chiefs,  many  of  whom  had  remained  loyal.  The 
evils  resulting  from  James's  policy  of  conciliation  were  in 
this  way  aggravated,  for,  while  the  favoured  Earls  were 
not  wooed  into  even  momentary  gratitude,  such  men  as 
O'Dogherty,  O'Cahan  and  Neil  Garv  O'Donnell,  whose 
past  loyalty  had — in  their  opinion — been  inadequately 
recognised,  waited  in  sullen  discontent  for  an  opportunity 
of  embarking  on  the  more  profitable  paths  of  disloyalty. 
Such  an  opportunity  did  not  present  itself  with  the  readi- 
ness that  might  have  been  expected.  Discontented  and 
mutinous  though  the  chiefs  and  sub-chiefs  remained,  in 
spite  of  sins  forgiven  and  fresh  benefits  conferred,  they 
were  unable  to  communicate  in  full  their  frame  of  mind  to 
the  rank  and  file  on  whom  they  were  dependent  for  their 
following.  The  people,  in  fact,  had  at  the  moment  no 
enthusiasm  for  a  revival  of  the  old  conditions.  They 
were  tasting  joys  and  liberties  hitherto  undreamt  of. 
The  feudal  system  was  for  the  moment  dead,  or  at  any 
rate  suspended.  The  chiefs,  under  the  lead  of  Tyrone, 
had  made  desperate  but  vain  efforts  to  avert  the  reforms 
which  threatened  their  ancient  privileges.  All  the  terrors 
and  persecutions  of  religion  had  been  called  in  to  their 
aid.  By  a  free  advertisement  of  the  cheaper  Church 
formulae  they  had  sought  to  mask  their  real  designs  and 
to  lend  a  superficial  sanctity  to  aims  which  were,  at 
bottom,  wholly  sordid.  In  spite  of  all,  however,  the 
dreaded  reforms  had  been  carried  out ;  the  old  Irish 
exactions,  coyne,  livery  and  bonnaght,  "  cuttings  and 
cosherings,"  had  been  officially  banned,  and  the  two 
leading  representatives  of  the  old  order  had  fled  a  country 
which  no  longer  offered  them  their  old  liberty  of  action. 
The  blow  to  the  Ulster  aristocracy  and  its  prescriptive 
rights  was  overwhelming,  and,  as  events  proved,  per- 
manent ;  for  no  pretensions  to  Royalty  could  survive 
the  Plantation.  For  half  a  century  after  the  events, 
this  grievance  continued  to  rankle  in  the  minds  of  the 
dominant  class — always  smouldering  beneath  the  surface, 
and  at  times  breaking  out  in  flame  and  blood. 

In  the  case  of  the  lower  orders  there  was  no  such  sense 
of  grievance,  nor  was  such  to  be  expected,  for  they  were 
substantial  gainers  under  the  new  order  of  things,  though 


1607-15]  INCREASE  IN  THE  NATIVE  POPULATION    5 

at  first  only  semi-conscious  gamers.  For  a  full  realisation 
of  all  that  the  change  meant  to  them  time  was  required. 
The  six-years'  peace  which  followed  on  Tyrone's  submission 
did  much  in  that  direction,  for  it  helped  to  dispel  much  of 
the  glamour  which  still  hung  around  the  old-established 
ideas.  The  people  learned  to  stretch  their  limbs  and 
breathe  the  air  of  freedom.  James's  rule  of  the  conquered 
province — prior  to  O'Dogherty's  rebellion — was,  in  fact, 
benevolent  to  a  fault.  Allusion  has  already  been  made  to 
the  causes  which  lay  at  the  back  of  this  mood.  James 
hated  the  woman  who  had  murdered  his  mother,  and  it 
was  only  natural  that,  out  of  these  feelings,  should  arise 
an  indulgent  attitude  towards  those  who  had  harassed 
her  administration  and  rebelled  against  her  rule.  As  far 
as  the  Ulster  chiefs  were  concerned,  the  practical  outcome 
of  this  mental  attitude  was  all  that  could  be  desired,  for 
it  spelled  pardon  for  all  offences,  civil  or  political,  com- 
mitted during  Elizabeth's  reign.  Chichester  was  only 
too  ready  to  tune  himself  to  the  King's  mood.  With  a 
quick  change  of  front,  he  showed  that  he  could  be  as 
considerate  in  victory  as  he  had  been  brutal  in  conflict. 
His  energies  were  now  wholly  given  to  the  development  of 
schemes  for  the  protection  and  general  welfare  of  those 
whom — while  hi  rebellion — he  had  systematically  de- 
stroyed. The  doctrine  of  extermination,  which  he  had 
so  freely  advocated  during  the  days  of  rebellion,  was  in 
fact  no  longer  presentable.  The  country  was  at  peace, 
and — so  far  as  could  be  foreseen — likely  to  remain  so ;  the 
people  were  submissive,  and,  as  such,  immune  from 
attack.  A  far  deeper  problem,  however,  lay  before  the 
administration  with  its  sword  sheathed  than  had  ever 
faced  it  in  the  days  of  red  war.  War  had  kept  the  native 
population  within  bounds.  The  chronic  inter-tribal  raids 
— which  spared  neither  age  nor  sex — had  done  more 
even  than  the  English  arms  to  stem  the  growth  of  the 
population.  Now  all  these  things  were  at  an  end.  Never 
again  would  O'Neil  raid  Donegal,  and  O'Donnell  in  retali- 
ation raid  the  peasantry  of  Tyrone.  Freed  from  these 
chronic  scourges,  and  freed  from  the  penalties  consequent 
upon  rebellion  against  the  Crown,  the  native  population 
might  reasonably  be  expected  to  increase  with  alarming 
rapidity.  Herein  lay  a  danger  which  was  not  to  be 
underrated.  The  question  of  planting  Ulster  with  Anglo- 


6  ULSTER  UNDER  JAMES  I  [CHAP.  I 

Saxons  from  across  the  water  was  in  the  mouths  of  many, 
and  in  the  minds  of  all.  Chichester  had  been  working 
to  this  end  for  five  years,  and  James  himself  was  not 
behind  him  in  enthusiasm.  The  main  difficulty  lay  in 
the  fact  of  the  native  population,  still  inconveniently 
abundant  and  incredibly  prolific.  In  spite  of  the  famine 
of  1603 — the  scope  and  effect  of  which  has  been  so  grossly 
exaggerated  by  Irish  historians — the  peasantry  still  existed 
in  great  numbers  in  the  seven  western  counties  of  Ulster. 
Sir  Robert  Jacob,  the  Solicitor-General,  reckoned  in  1610 
— seven  years  only  after  the  famine — that  there  were 
6,000  able-bodied  men  in  Tyrone  and  Coleraine,  6,000 
in  Donegal,  4,000  in  Armagh  and  3,000  each  in  Monaghan, 
Fermanagh  and  Cavan.1  If  we  take  these  figures  as 
representing — according  to  modern  computation — one- 
tenth  of  the  entire  population,  it  at  once  becomes  evident 
that — outside  of  South  Antrim  and  North  Down — the 
famine  attributed  to  Chichester  had  produced  but  little 
effect  upon  the  population  problem.  Sir  Robert  Jacob's 
estimate  of  the  native  population,  which  was  endorsed 
by  Chichester's  own  observations,  was — at  the  time  of 
its  publication — the  occasion  of  some  dismay  to  the  Lord 
Deputy.  "  The  country  to  be  inhabited,"  he  wrote  in 
despair,  "  has  no  sign  of  Plantation  and  yet  is  full  of 
people."  The  presence  of  these  people  seemed  indeed  a 
hopeless  bar  to  the  introduction  of  a  new  race  on  the 
scale  desired.  In  the  case  of  North  Down  and  South 
Antrim,  which  since  1603  had  developed  into  a  British 
Colony,  no  such  difficulty  had  presented  itself.  In  these 
districts  Chichester's  devastating  policy  of  fire,  sword 
and  famine  had  done  its  work.  The  native  element  had 
either  been  largely  destroyed  or  driven  north,  south 
and  west. 

In  the  eyes  of  the  Irish  territorial  lords,  who  assessed 
peasantry  as  cattle,  the  loss  of  the  population  had  shorn 
their  lands  of  all  value,  and  they  were  only  too  ready  to 
dispose  of  them  for  cash.  Hamilton,  Montgomery  and 
Sir  Edward  Cromwell  were  the  first  to  take  advantage  of 
the  opportunity  thus  offered  for  acquiring  from  the  owners, 
on  easy  terms,  lands,  the  potentialities  of  which  they  fully 
recognised.  The  lands  of  Con  McNeil  and  Phelim  McCartan 
were  the  first  to  pass  into  their  hands,  and — by  the  King's 
1  Chichester  to  Privy  Council,  March  10,  1609. 


1606]  READY  SALE  OF  THEIR  LANDS  BY  NATIVES    7 

express  command — were  to  be  offered  for  distribution 
to  English  and  Lowland  Scotch  tenants  only. 

The  absence  of  a  native  population  and  the  geographical 
proximity  of  Down  and  Antrim  to  Great  Britain  made 
the  proposition  a  peculiarly  attractive  one,  and  suitable 
settlers  responded  with  alacrity  to  the  offer  put  before 
them.  The  undeveloped  possibilities  of  the  invaded 
country  were  at  once  apparent  to  the  new  colonists,  and 
encouraged  an  extension  of  the  Plantation  so  successfully 
begun.  Piece  by  piece  the  new-comers  bought  up  the 
neighbouring  properties,  the  irresistible  bait  in  each 
case  being  ready  money.  Shane  McBrian,  Neil  McHugh's 
heirs  and  Rory  McQuillan,  each  in  turn  parted  for  cash 
with  the  lands  allotted  to  them  by  Chichester.  They 
all  alike  rioted  on  the  proceeds  in  short-lived  luxury, 
and  left  their  descendants  landless,  portionless  and  with 
an  undying  grievance  against  the  British  settlers.  These 
swift  changes  had  left  the  Route  and  Glynns  in  North 
Antrim  but  little  changed.  Sir  Randall  McDonnell,  old 
Sorley  Boy's  son,  in  spite  of  having  fought  for  Tyrone 
at  the  battle  of  Kinsale,  was  given  a  grant  of  333,000 
acres  (practically  half  the  county)  extending  along  the 
coast  from  Larne  to  the  Bann.  The  old  McDonnell 
Highlanders  still  occupied  a  considerable  part  of  this 
territory,  especially  along  the  coast  line,  but  they  were  not 
in  sufficient  numbers  to  develop  to  the  best  advantage 
so  colossal  a  property,  and  Sir  Randall  found  it  necessary 
to  introduce  a  number  of  Lowland  Scotch,  who — though 
antagonistic  to  him  in  religion  and  sentiment — were  the 
only  tenants  whom  the  rules  of  the  Plantation  allowed 
to  be  imported.  Magee  Island  was  given  over  to  the 
clan  of  that  name — originally  Scotch  (McGee)  but  Irish  by 
adoption  and  Roman  Catholic  by  religion — while  South 
and  West  Down,  Mourne  and  Iveagh  were  still  thick  with 
the  native  Irish.  The  Ards,  Great  and  Little,  remained 
in  the  hands  of  the  old  English,  the  first  British  colonists 
in  Ulster. 

The  ease  and  thoroughness  with  which  the  colonisation 
of  Down  and  Antrim  had  been  carried  out,  and  the  im- 
mediate response  which  the  colonised  country  had  yielded 
to  settled  industry,  naturally  added  to  the  eagerness  of 
James  and  Chichester  to  extend  the  operation  to  the 
rest  of  Ulster. 


8  ULSTER  UNDER  JAMES  I  [CHAP,  i 

From  the  British  point  of  view,  every  consideration — 
national  as  well  as  economic — pointed  peremptorily  in 
the  direction  of  Plantation.  The  experience  of  centuries 
had  driven  home  the  lesson  that  .only  through  the  intro- 
duction of  a  more  stable  and  industrious  population  was 
there  any  hope  of  the  regeneration  of  Ulster.  It  was  not 
only  that  the  native  element  was  reactionary  to  the  core, 
and,  as  such,  opposed  to  every  social  improvement  or 
educational  advance  ;  the  real  evil,  from  the  point  of 
view  of  the  Crown,  lay  in  the  invariable  repudiation  by 
the  chiefs  of  every  inconvenient  covenant.  It  was  this 
traditional  failing,  more  than  anything  else,  which  had 
kept  the  country  embroiled  in  war  throughout  the  three 
preceding  reigns,  and  which  at  once  drained  the  royal 
exchequer  and  blighted  the  face  of  Ulster  itself.  To  a 
mind  as  shrewd  as  that  of  James  I,  it  was  unhappily 
clear  that  Ulster  could  never  be  a  source  of  profit  to  the 
Crown  so  long  as  all  dues  had  to  be  collected  at  the  point 
of  the  sword. 

From  the  democratic  standpoint  the  colonisation  policy 
was  also  capable  of  logical  justification.  It  was  urged 
that  the  substitution  of  the  recognised  codes  and  observ- 
ances of  civilisation,  in  place  of  the  feudalism  of  the  dark 
ages,  could  only  result  in  improved  living  conditions  for 
the  masses  of  the  peasantry.  It  was  moreover  hoped — 
with  a  not  unreasonable  optimism — that  the  establish- 
ment of  a  more  advanced  civilisation  in  their  midst  would 
gradually  woo  the  natives  from  their  primitive  ways  into 
the  more  prosaic  paths  of  law  and  order,  and  possibly  of 
social  progress.  It  is  quite  clear,  from  the  State  corre- 
spondence of  the  day,  that  Chichester,  whom  patriotic 
writers  delight  to  paint  as  a  fiend  of  malignity,  was  genu- 
inely interested  in  the  betterment  of  the  native  peasantry, 
and  that  he  honestly  held  the  view  that  this  betterment 
would  be  assisted  by  the  introduction  of  British  colonists. 
In  this  policy  lay  the  only  hope  of  sustained  reformation 
in  the  seven  western  counties,  and  even  then  it  was  recog- 
nised that  the  reformation  would  be  economic  rather  than 
sentimental.  If  the  natives  could  be  converted  from 
nomad  herdsmen  and  sporadic  bandits  into  settled  agri- 
culturists and  traders,  there  was  every  prospect  of  the 
country  making  headway  as  a  source  of  revenue  to  the 
Crown ;  but,  even  then,  there  could  be  but  little  hope  of  any 


1606]    DIFFICULT  CASE  OF  THE  LOYAL  CHIEFS        9 

permanent  advance  in  loyalty  and  contentment.  Against 
any  such  happy  consummation  two  hostile  influences 
could  be  counted  upon  to  work  ceaselessly  and  untiringly. 
As  long  as  there  were  priests  in  the  country  brooding  over 
their  lost  Church  revenues,  and  as  long  as  there  were 
penniless  scions  of  the  native  aristocracy  thirsting  for  a 
revival  of  their  own  feudal  rights,  there  could  be  no  hope 
of  a  permanently  contented  proletariat.  Religion  and 
patriotism  in  combination  have  always  proved  an  irresist- 
ible incentive  to  revolt,  or  at  any  rate  to  seditious  dis- 
content, and  one  behind  which  the  sordid  aims  of  its 
propagandists  can  always  be  effectually  concealed  from 
the  uneducated. 

In  addition  to  the  difficulties  arising  from  the  existence 
of  a  hostile  and  prolific  population,  the  question  of  planting 
the  seven  western  counties  presented  other  difficulties 
little  less  depressing.  Although  the  combined  dependen- 
cies of  O'Neil  and  O'Donnell  practically  embraced  the 
whole  of  Ulster,  and  although  the  flight  and  suspected 
treachery  of  the  two  Earls  technically  laid  the  whole 
of  the  Province  open  to  forfeiture,  there  still  remained  a 
certain  number  of  loyal  or  semi-loyal  sub-chiefs  whose 
interests  would  be  very  seriously  prejudiced  by  a  British 
Plantation,  and  whose  presence  on  the  spot  would  go  far 
to  defeat  the  objects  of  the  colony. 

Neil  Garv  O'Donnell  and  Sir  Cahir  O'Dogherty  in 
Donegal,  and  Sir  Donnell  O'Cahan  in  Coleraine  still  held 
sway  over  vast  tracts  of  land,  to  the  peaceable  dominion 
of  which  their  recent  services  seemed  to  entitle  them. 
In  Co.  Armagh  Chichester  himself  had,  before  the  flight 
of  the  Earls,  established  Sir  Tirlough  McHenry,  Sir  Henry 
Oge  O'Neil  and  Sir  Oghie  O'Hanlon  in  the  lordship 
over  a  considerable  portion  of  the  county.  In  Tyrone, 
Tirlough  McArt  O'Neil  (Tirlough  Luineach's  grandson) 
had  been  apportioned  large  and  profitable  estates, 
while  in  Fermanagh,  Connor  Roe  Maguire  and  Brian 
Maguire  had — in  recognition  of  past  services — been 
officially  installed  as  dominant  lords  over  the  entire 
county. 

The  case  of  Co.  Monaghan  calls  for  special  notice, 
because  its  position  was  so  unique  that,  in  the  end,  it 
had  to  be  excluded  from  the  Plantation  scheme.  The 
facts  of  the  case  are  given  in  full  in  Chapter  IV  and 


10  ULSTER  UNDER  JAMES  I  [CHAP,  i 

need  not  at  the  moment  be  considered  in  detail.  All 
that  it  is  necessary  to  bear  in  mind  is  that  the  technical 
difficulties  in  the  way  of  Plantation  presented  by  the  case 
of  Co.  Monaghan  were  the  most  formidable  that 
Chichester  had  to  face. 

An  interesting  circumstance  which  speaks  eloquently  of 
the  difficulties  which  stood  in  the  way — or  which  were 
felt  to  stand  in  the  way — of  the  Plantation  of  the  seven 
western  counties  of  Ulster  is  to  be  found  in  the  first  attempt 
during  the  reign  of  James  to  import  aliens  on  a  large 
scale  into  Ireland.  This  attempt  was  not  directed  to 
Ulster,  but  to  the  distant  county  of  Roscommon. 

For  many  years  past  the  Graemes,  or  Grahams,  of  the 
Debatable  Lands,  the  Armstrongs  and  Elliots  of  Liddesdale, 
the  Scots  and  Crosiers  of  Esk  and  Ewesdale,  and — on  the 
Cumberland  side — the  Routledges  and  Hetheringtons  had 
kept  the  Western  Marches,  or  Borderlands,  between 
England  and  Scotland  in  a  state  of  ceaseless  turmoil. 
These  borderers  recognised  no  law  but  their  own  code, 
which,  though  rigid  in  its  way,  clashed  in  many  respects 
with  the  laws  of  the  land.  The  ceaseless  forays  and  raids 
of  these  freebooters  had  disturbed  the  whole  of  Elizabeth's 
reign,  and  promised  to  continue  indefinitely  through  that 
of  James,in  spite  of  the  technical  union  of  the  two  countries. 
James,  accordingly,  resolved  to  remove  these  disturbing 
elements  out  of  their  own  sphere,  or  at  all  events  as  many 
of  them  as  could  be  satisfactorily  provided  for  in  Ireland. 
To  this  end  he  wrote  to  Chichester  in  April  1606,  inform- 
ing him  of  his  intention  to  transplant  certain  border 
clans  into  Ireland,  and  asking  if,  and  where,  he  could 
find  room  for  them.  For  the  reasons  already  given, 
Ulster  was  not  at  the  moment  a  suitable  field  for  Plantation, 
and  Chichester  in  his  reply  suggested  Roscommon  as 
being — all  things  considered — the  most  likely  district  in 
Ireland  to  answer  the  requirements  of  the  King's  scheme. 
Accordingly,  arrangements  were  entered  into  with  Sir 
Ralph  Sidley  for  their  reception  in  that  county. 

On  the  other  side  of  the  water  a  committee  consisting 
of  the  Bishop  of  Carlisle,  Sir  Wilfred  Lawson,  Sir  Charles 
Hall  and  Mr.  Charles  Pennington  were  appointed  to 
supervise  all  the  arrangements  connected  with  the  trans- 
ference of  the  borderers  from  their  native  land  to  the 
wilds  of  Ireland.  On  September  12  the  final  agreement 


1606]  ITS  FAILURE  11 

was  signed  by  Sir  Ralph  Sidley  on  the  one  hand,  and  by 
the  Committee  representing  the  borderers'  interests  on 
the  other.  The  borderers — though  naturally  unwilling 
to  leave  their  native  country — offered  no  open  opposition 
to  a  scheme  as  to  which  they  were  at  no  time  consulted. 
The  transportation  was  carried  out  smoothly  and  without 
hitch.  The  borderers,  we  are  told,  took  with  them  their 
wives,  families,  farm-servants  and  horses.1  In  addition 
to  the  principal  clans  concerned  we  find  among  the  lists 
of  those  who  crossed  the  Channel  the  names  of  Beattie, 
Nixon,  Irwin,  Little,  Foster,  Murray  and  Byers. 

The  Plantation  per  se  was  not  a  success.  The  colonists 
soon  became  dissatisfied  with  their  isolated  condition, 
cut  off  as  they  were  from  their  co-religionists,  and  sur- 
rounded by  a  people  who  viewed  their  arrival  with  marked 
hostility,  and  after  the  great  Plantation  of  the  six  escheated 
counties  in  1610  they  gradually  drifted  up  into  Ulster, 
where  they  settled  down  among  their  compatriots. 

It  must  always  remain  an  open  question  as  to  whether 
the  Ulster  Plantation  would  ever  have  become  an  accom- 
plished fact  but  for  the  timely  accident  of  O'Dogherty's 
rebellion.  Prior  to  this  disastrous  affair,  Chichester  had 
not  only  been  highly  conscious  of  the  difficulties  attending 
any  attempted  Plantation  of  the  seven  counties,  but  had 
been  hampered  in  his  designs  by  a  sense  of  justice  towards 
the  non-rebellious  natives,  who  remained  in  great  numbers 
on  the  ground.  O'Dogherty's  outbreak,  however — wholly 
unjustified  as  it  was  by  any  circumstances  of  the  moment 
— seems  to  have  closed  Chichester's  heart  to  any  of  the 
softer  feelings  which  he  had  entertained  towards  the 
natives  since  the  termination  of  Tyrone's  rebellion.  It 
brought  home  to  him  the  conviction  that  there  was  no 
remedy  for  Ulster  outside  of  Plantation,  and  that,  in 
order  to  make  such  a  Plantation  possible,  it  would  be 
justifiable  in  some  cases  to  go  beyond  the  limits  of  strictly 
fair  dealing. 

1  Cal.  State  Papers,  James,  1606,  873. 


CHAPTER  II 

SIR  CAHIR  O'DOGHERTY'S  REBELLION 

OF  all  the  many  Ulster  rebellions,  O'Dogherty's  stands 
out  as  the  most  pathetic  and  the  most  insane.  Sir  Cahir 
O'Dogherty,  whose  name  the  rebellion  bears,  was  a  very 
young  man,  who — as  a  boy — had  been  installed  by  the 
Government  as  chief  of  Inishowen  in  opposition  to  the 
claims  of  his  uncle  Phelim,  who  was  the  candidate  nomi- 
nated by  Tyrone.  As  a  natural  sequence  he  had — in  self- 
defence — been  forced  into  alliance  with  Sir  Henry  Docwra 
in  his  long  and  successful  campaign  in  the  valley  of  the 
Foyle  against  Tyrone  and  Hugh  Roe  O'Donnell.  In 
recognition  of  this  support,  and  especially  of  some  excellent 
services  rendered  during  a  raid  on  Cormac  McBaron's 
cattle  at  Augher,  O'Dogherty  had  been  knighted  by  Mount- 
joy,  and,  in  addition,  had  been  officially  emancipated  in 
perpetuity  from  the  traditional  over-lordship  of  the 
reigning  O'Donnell.  After  the  flight  of  the  Earls,  young 
Sir  Cahir  wras  especially  singled  out  for  various  honours 
and  offices  of  importance.  He  was,  among  other  things, 
elected  a  member  of  the  Derry  Corporation,  and  was 
selected  as  one  of  the  eighteen  magnates  authorised  to 
dispense  justice  in  Ulster.  He  was  appointed  foreman 
of  the  Grand  Jury  of  twenty-three  that  sat  in  judgment 
on  Tyrone  and  Tyrconnell,  and  personally  guided  them 
in  the  true  bill  which  they  found  against  both  the  fugitives.1 
It  will  be  seen,  then,  that  Sir  Cahir  was  under  no  small 
debt  of  gratitude  to  the  English  Government  for  the 
position  in  which  he  found  himself.  This,  however,  was 
by  no  means  his  own  view.  His  sudden  acquisition  of 
wealth  and  power  seems  to  have  deprived  him  of  all  sense 
of  values.  In  place  of  any  admission  of  indebtedness,  he 
succeeded  in  persuading  himself  that  he  was  the  victim 
of  sustained  injustice.  The  grievance  on  which  he  based 
this  belief  was  in  connection  with  the  Island  of  Inch. 

1  Gal.  State  Papers,  James,  756. 


1608]  THE  CASE  OF  INCH  ISLAND  13 

The  peninsula  in  Lough  Swilly  known  as  Inch  Island 
contained  some  3,000  acres  of  excellent  land.  Shortly 
prior  to  Tyrone's  submission  in  1603,  this  island  had 
been  leased  by  Mountjoy  (acting  on  behalf  of  the  Crown) 
to  Sir  Ralph  Bingley  for  twenty-one  years.  This  question- 
able transaction  evoked  some  very  strong  protests  from 
Sir  Henry  Docwra,  who  pointed  out  to  the  Lord- Lieutenant 
that  it  was  an  infringement  of  O'Dogherty's  rights  which 
was  in  no  way  justified  by  that  young  man's  beha- 
viour in  the  past.  Mountjoy  replied  curtly  to  the  effect 
that  the  transaction  was  completed  and  that  the  question 
could  not  be  reopened.1  Smarting  under  a  legitimate 
sense  of  wrong,  Sir  Cahir  then  undertook  a  special  journey 
to  London,  where  he  laid  his  case  before  the  King  in 
person.  James  listened  with  attention  and  in  the  judicial 
spirit  on  which  he  so  greatly  prided  himself.  At  the 
end  of  Sir  Cahir's  recital  he  wrote  to  the  Lord-Lieutenant 
cancelling  the  arrangement  entered  into  with  Sir  Ralph 
Bingley,  and  commanding  that  Inch  Island  should  be 
forthwith  restored  to  O'Dogherty.2  For  some  unexplained 
reason  this  command  of  the  King's  was  calmly  ignored, 
and  Bingley  remained  in  possession  of  Inch  Island  for 
a  further  five  years.  In  the  meanwhile,  Mountjoy  (or 
Devonshire  as  he  had  by  that  time  become)  had  died 
and  had  so  placed  himself  beyond  reach  of  the  King's 
displeasure.  It  is  quite  evident,  however,  that  the  latter 
was  not  unaware  of  the  late  Lord-Lieutenant's  neglect 
of  his  command,  for  on  April  8,  1608,  we  find  him 
once  more  writing  to  Ireland  and  repeating  his  command 
that  Inch  Island  was  to  be  restored  to  O'Dogherty.  Un- 
fortunately, the  royal  command  was  issued  too  late  to 
stave  off  O'Dogherty's  rebellion,  which  had  broken  out 
before  the  news  of  the  King's  renewed  action  in  the  matter 
had  reached  Derry.  It  is,  however,  very  much  to  be 
doubted  whether  the  course  of  events  would  have  been 
altered  even  had  the  King's  command  been  finally  carried 
out.  O'Dogherty  was  in  a  mutinous  mood.  It  was 
claimed  that  Sir  George  Paulett,  Docwra's  successor  as 
Governor  of  Derry,  had  struck  him  during  an  altercation, 
and  that  the  affront  rankled  continually.  It  is  beyond 
question  that  Paulett  was  a  very  unpopular  man  with  all 

1  Cat.  State  Papers,  James,  1608,  652. 

8  King  to  Devonshire,  September  4,  1603. 


14     SIR  CAHIR  O'DOGHERTY'S  REBELLION  [CHAP,  n 

sections  of  society,  British  no  less  than  native.  Chichester, 
in  a  letter  written  to  the  Privy  Council  after  the  surprise 
of  Derry,  says  :  "  he  [Paulett]  was  so  odious  to  the  soldiers 
and  the  rest  of  inhabitants  of  the  town  that  they  would 
have  done  him  mischief  in  the  tumult  if  he  had  escaped 
the  rebels  and  come  in  among  them."  l  Against  such  a 
man  Sir  Cahir  would  no  doubt  have  personal  grievances, 
but  it  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  any  that  would  justify 
so  desperate  a  remedy  as  that  of  rebellion.  In  spite  of 
the  sequestration  of  Inch  Island,  O'Dogherty  was,  by 
his  own  admission,  better  off  than  any  of  his  ancestors 
had  been,  by  virtue  of  his  independence  of  O'Donnell.* 
For  his  relief  from  this  vassalage  tax,  for  his  position  as 
the  ruling  chief,  and  for  the  many  honours  and  profitable 
offices  bestowed  on  him,  he  had  to  thank  the  English 
Government.  Unfortunately,  however,  in  the  case  of 
O'Dogherty — as  in  the  case  of  so  many  Irish  rebels — 
one  authenticated  grievance  seems  to  have  obliterated 
all  sense  of  benefits  received  in  other  directions.  In 
place  of  being  a  grateful  subject  he  became  an  aggrieved 
malcontent,  attributing  all  advantages  gained  to  his  own 
outstanding  merits,  and  thanking  the  Government  for 
nothing.  This  puerile  mood  at  its  genesis  may  have 
been  a  spontaneous  growth,  but  it  was  subsequently 
proved  with  the  utmost  clearness  that  it  was  deliberately 
encouraged  for  his  own  ends  by  the  Government's  nominal 
ally,  Neil  Garv  O'Donnell. 

Neil  Garv,  who  was  the  son  of  Con  and  the  grandson  of 
Calvagh  O'Donnell,  had  been  the  most  consistent  supporter 
of  the  English  throughout  Tyrone's  rebellion.  His  parti- 
sanship was  not  by  any  means  disinterested,  for  he  was 
a  claimant  for  the  chiefry  of  Donegal,  which  was  at  the 
time  vested  in  Hugh  Roe  O'Donnell,  Tyrone's  son-in-law 
and  close  associate  in  rebellion.  When  Hugh  Roe  fled  to 
Spain  after  the  battle  of  Kinsale,  Neil  Garv — not  un- 
reasonably— looked  to  be  established  in  his  place.  Docwra, 
however — who  knew  more  about  him  than  any  one 
else — was  not  sufficiently  satisfied  as  to  his  merits.  He 
had  recently  done  good  service  against  Tyrone  and  Hugh 
Roe,  and  had  on  several  occasions  distinguished  himself  in 
fight;  but  there  were  some  unpleasant  features  in  his 

i  Chichester  to  Privy  Council,  May  4,  1608. 
8  Ibid.,  May  19,  1608. 


1608]  NEIL   GARY  15 

personal  character,  which  Docwra,  in  writing  to  Mountjoy, 
summed  up  as  follows  :  "  His  extreme  pride,  ambition 
and  insatiable  covetousness,  his  want  of  any  knowledge 
when  he  is  well  dealt  with,  his  importunity  in  all  things 
right  or  wrong,  his  continual  begging  and  unprofitable 
wasting  of  whatsoever  he  gets,  his  aptness  to  desperate 
and  unspeakable  discontent  over  trifles  of  no  worth."  1 
The  above  propensities  were  considered  so  undesirable 
that  there  was  much  debate  between  Mountjoy  and  Docwra 
as  to  whether  it  would  not  be  safer  to  nominate  Hugh 
Roe's  younger  brother  Rory  to  the  vacant  chiefry.  While 
the  matter  was  still  under  discussion,  Neil  Garv  was 
sufficiently  ill-advised  to  cause  himself  to  be  proclaimed 
The  O'Donnell,  with  the  customary  rights,  at  Kilmacrenan. 
For  this  act  of  presumption  he  was  arrested  and  taken 
to  Derry,  where  he  was  released  as  a  prisoner  on  parole 
and  allowed  the  liberty  of  the  town.  This  generous 
treatment  was  unfortunately  taken  advantage  of,  for 
Neil  Garv  broke  his  parole  and  made  off  once  more  into 
central  Donegal.  By  this  act  of  bad  faith  Neil  Garv 
permanently  ruined  any  chances  he  might  have  had  of 
being  nominated  to  the  Donegal  chiefry.  Mountjoy 
hesitated  no  longer.  Rory  O'Donnell  was  created  Earl 
of  Tyrconnell  and  Lord  of  Donegal,  and  Neil  Garv — an 
embittered  and  discontented  man — had  to  put  up  with 
the  lesser  lands  of  the  Finn  Valley.  Then,  in  1607,  Rory 
himself  started  to  hatch  treasonable  plots,  and  on  their 
discovery  fled  the  country.  No  official  successor  to  the 
chiefry  of  the  county  was  officially  nominated  by  the 
Government,  but  there  is  not  the  slightest  doubt  that 
Neil  Garv  took  it  for  granted — and  not  without  reason — 
that  he  himself  automatically  succeeded  to  the  vacancy. 
All  might  have  been  well  had  this  contented  him,  but  his 
insatiable  covetousness  proved  his  undoing.  Inishowen 
had  from  time  immemorial  been  tributary  to  Donegal, 
the  annual  tax  payable  by  The  O'Dogherty  being  120 
cows,8  and  Inishowen — ruled  over  by  Sir  Cahir — had  now, 
by  royal  decree,  been  declared  independent  of  the  tradi- 
tional tax.  In  Neil  Garv's  mind  this  constituted  a  griev- 
ance, and  he  set  to  work  to  get  back  his  own,  not  by 
direct  agitation,  but  by  more  subtle  and  underhand 

1  Docwra  to  Mountjoy,  January  4,  1602. 

2  Sir  Thomas  Phillips  to  Salisbury,  May  10,  1608. 

3 


16    SIR  CAHIR  O'DOGHERTY'S  REBELLION     [CHAP,  n 

methods.  While  still  posing  as  the  Government  supporter 
and  ally,  he  insidiously  sowed  in  young  Cahir  O'Dogherty 's 
breast  the  seeds  of  revolt,  in  the  hopes  that,  if  they  bore 
fruit,  Inishowen  would  once  more  come  under  his  own 
dominion.  Neil  Garv's  designs,  on  analysis,  appear  to 
have  been  singularly  crude.  He  calculated  that,  after 
O'Dogherty  had  been  disgraced  and  probably  executed 
for  his  revolt,  the  lands  of  Inishowen  would  revert  to 
himself  as  the  head  of  the  family  of  O'Donnell.  His 
inveterate  greed,  however,  once  more  proved  fatal  to 
his  own  schemes.  While  plotting  O'Dogherty's  downfall, 
he  could  by  no  means  resist  the  temptation  of  bargaining 
for  a  share  of  the  spoils  should  Sir  Cahir  by  chance  prove 
successful.  The  evidence  on  this  point  is  so  overwhelming 
as  to  leave  no  shadow  of  doubt,  not  only  as  to  Neil  Garv's 
treachery  to  the  English,  with  whom  he  was  in  ostensible 
alliance,  but  also  as  to  his  treachery  towards  his  fellow 
conspirators  among  the  Irish.  During  the  actual  course 
of  the  rebellion  his  duplicity  was  only  half  suspected. 
It  was  only  by  degrees,  as  one  witness  after  another  came 
forward  and  gave  voluntary  evidence,  that  the  full  extent 
of  his  double-dealing  was  brought  to  light.  .  The  first  of 
these  witnesses,  and  not  the  least  important,  was  his 
secretary,  Doltagh  McGilliduff.  Further  damning  evi- 
dence against  him  was  heaped  up  piece  by  piece  by  Lady 
O'Dogherty,1  Daniel  O'Dogherty8  (Sir  Cahir's  brother), 
Brian  McCoyne  O'Dogherty,  Phelim  Reagh  McDavitt 
(one  of  the  chief  conspirators),  Ineenduv  (the  mother  of 
Tyrconnell),*  John  Lynchull,  and  finally  by  his  two  brothers 
Con  and  Donnell.4  The  facts  brought  to  light  by  this 
formidable  array  of  witnesses  was  as  follows  :  Three 
days  before  the  date  fixed  for  the  outbreak,  O'Dogherty 
came  to  Castle  Finn,  where  Neil  Garv  lived,  and  received 
from  the  older  man  his  final  instructions  as  to  the  way  in 
which  the  operations  were  to  be  carried  out.  By  way 
of  encouraging  O'Dogherty  to  irremediable  recklessness, 
Neil  Garv  assured  him  that  he  had  a  secret  understanding 
with  Sir  Richard  Hansard,  the  Governor  of  Lifford,  who 
had  agreed  to  yield  the  fort  into  his  hands."  Buoyed  up 
by  these  false  assurances,  Sir  Cahir  launched  his  effort 

1  Cal.  State  Papers,  James,  807.  2  Ibid.,  James,  796. 

3  Ibid.,  James,  802.  <  Ibid.,  James,  782. 

•  Ibid.,  James,  705. 


1608]  SEIZURE   OF  CAPTAIN  HART  17 

at  the  appointed  time,  and — as  far  as  his  own  share  in 
the  undertaking  was  concerned — with  unqualified  success. 
His  treacherous  ally,  however,  failed  to  support  him,  and 
in  the  very  hour  of  his  success  he  must  have  realised 
that  he  was  betrayed  and  lost.  It  is  time  now,  however, 
to  come  to  the  actual  facts  of  the  rebellion. 

Captain  Hart,  the  Governor  of  Culmore  Fort,  and  his 
wife  were  great  friends  of  young  Sir  Cahir  O'Dogherty,  and 
the  two  families  were  in  the  habit  of  exchanging  hospi- 
talities. Their  relations  were  of  an  intimate  character. 
Captain  Hart  was  godfather  to  O'Dogherty 's  son,  and 
Sir  Cahir  had  recently  sold  Hart  3,000  acres  of  land  for 
cash.1  There  is  a  possibility  that  this  last  circumstance 
may  not  have  been  without  its  influence  in  determining 
Sir  Cahir  to  go  into  revolt.  In  the  1641  rebellion,  the  first 
British  to  be  sacrificed  by  the  natives  were  those  who 
had  recently  either  lent  them  money  or  bought  from  them 
real  estate,  the  idea  being  to  wipe  out  the  debt  in  the  one 
case,  and  to  recover  the  land  in  the  other.  There  is  no 
actual  evidence  to  show  that  Sir  Cahir  aimed  at  the  piratical 
recovery  of  his  land ;  but  we  know  that  he  was  heavily  in 
debt  when  he  went  into  rebellion,8  and  that  his  attitude 
in  the  affair  from  first  to  last  was  commercial  rather  than 
political. 

On  April  19,  1608,  the  O'Doghertys  invited  Hart  and 
his  wife  and  infant  son  to  their  house  at  Buncrana,  where 
they  were  hospitably  entertained.  As  they  were  about 
to  leave,  they  were — to  their  amazement — informed  that 
they  were  prisoners,  and  would  forfeit  their  lives  unless 
Culmore  Fort  was  delivered  up.  Expostulations  and 
appeals  to  old  friendship  and  the  claims  of  hospitality 
were  of  no  avail.  Sir  Cahir  remained  immovable.  Hart 
and  his  wife  were  separated,  and  the  former,  having 
been  bound,  was  taken  to  a  room  at  the  top  of  the  Castle 
and  was  offered  his  life  if  he  would  assist  in  a  plan  for 
betraying  the  fort  into  O'Dogherty's  hands,  failing  which  he 
was  threatened  with  instant  death.1  Hart  replied  that 
he  preferred  death  to  dishonour,  and  that  no  consideration 
would  induce  him  to  betray  his  trust.*  Leaving  Hart 
bound,  Sir  Cahir  then  so  worked  on  the  feelings  of  Mrs. 

1  Hibernia  Anglicana.          a  Captain  Hart's  letter,  Cat.  State  Papers. 

•  Captain  Hart's  letter. 

*  Sir  Josias  Bodley  to  (illegible),  May  3,  1608. 


18    SIR  CAHIR  O'DOGHERTY'S  REBELLION    [CHAP,  n 

Hart  by  threatening  the  life  of  her  child  that,  in  des- 
peration, she  finally  agreed  to  do  as  directed.  The  infant 
son  was  left  at  Buncrana  as  a  hostage,  and  the  rest  of 
the  party  set  out  for  Culmore,  accompanied  by  a  number 
of  O'Dogherty's  men.  On  approaching  the  fort,  Mrs. 
Hart  advanced  to  the  gate,  and  called  out  to  the  guard 
that  her  husband  had  broken  his  arm  and  required  assist- 
ance. The  warders  thereupon  came  out  and  were  at 
once  overpowered,  and  Sir  Cahir  and  his  men  marched 
unopposed  into  the  Castle.  The  Culmore  garrison  were 
made  prisoners,  and,  together  with  the  two  Harts,  were 
confined  in  the  cellars  from  which  Phelim  Reagh  McDavitt 
was  at  the  same  time  released.  This  young  man,  who 
was  a  brother  of  the  Hugh  Boy  who  had  exercised  so 
remarkable  an  influence  over  Sir  Henry  Docwra,  had 
been  handed  over  to  the  authorities  by  Sir  Cahir  himself 
shortly  before  his  revolt.1  He  was  now  released  and 
appointed  second  in  command  to  the  rebel  force. 

Everything  had  so  far  worked  smoothly  for  Sir  Cahir 
and  his  designs.  It  was,  however,  essential  to  his  further 
success  that  Derry  should  be  attacked  before  the  news 
of  the  capture  of  Culmore  had  reached  that  city.  He 
accordingly  left  a  small  garrison  in  the  fort,  and  with  about 
100  men  set  out  for  Derry.  On  approaching  the  city  he 
divided  his  force  into  two  parties,  of  which  he  himself 
commanded  one  and  Phelim  Reagh  the  other.  The  six 
miles  which  separated  Culmore  from  Derry  were  quickly 
covered.  The  city  was  found  wrapped  in  unsuspecting 
slumber.  We  learn  that,  during  the  lax  rule  of  Sir  George 
Paulett,  no  attempt  was  made  to  maintain  regular  guards, 
and  of  this  fact  the  assailants  were  fully  aware.  The 
country  had  now  been  at  peace  for  five  years.  Neil  Garv 
and  Sir  Cahir  O'Dogherty,  the  two  native  chiefs  who 
ruled  the  neighbouring  country,  were  reckoned  among 
the  firmest  friends  of  the  English.  There  was  perhaps 
some  excuse  for  a  certain  negligence,  but  to  relax  discipline 
as  Paulett  did  was  bound  sooner  or  later  to  prove  fatal 
in  a  country  such  as  Ireland.  Derry  at  the  time  was  an 
open  city,  the  only  walled  building  being  the  fort  at  the 
top  of  the  hill.  Even  here  there  was  evidently  no  guard 
kept,  for  Phelim  Reagh  and  his  fifty  men  made  their 
entry  unopposed.  Inside  George  Paulett  and  his  Lieuten- 

1  Col.  State  Papers,  James,  662  and  682. 


1608]  CAPTURE   OF  DERRY  19 

ant  and  Ensign  were  asleep.  They  seized  their  swords 
and  defended  themselves  as  best  they  could,  but  all  three 
were  quickly  killed,  as  were  also  Mr.  Corbett  and  one  or 
two  others.1 

In  the  meanwhile  O'Dogherty  had  succeeded  in  making 
himself  master  of  the  storehouse,  where  the  watchman 
was  found  asleep.  There  appears  to  have  been  no  resist- 
ance, but  Mr.  Harris,  the  sub-sheriff  of  Donegal,  who 
slept  there,  was  killed. 

In  other  parts  of  the  city,  some  of  the  surprised  officers 
showed  considerable  gallantry.  Lieutenant  Gordon  ran 
out  into  the  street  in  his  night-dress,  sword  in  hand  and 
managed  to  kill  two  of  his  assailants  before  he  was  himself 
killed.  In  another  part  of  the  town  Captain  Vaughan 
defended  himself  for  some  time  in  his  own  house,  but 
finally  surrendered  upon  terms.  The  most  successful 
resistance  was  that  put  up  by  Lieutenant  Baker.  This 
young  officer,  at  the  first  alarm,  herded  some  twenty  men, 
and  two  hundred  women  and  children,  into  the  Bishop's 
house,  and  into  the  adjoining  house  belonging  to  Sheriff 
Babington.  Here  they  successfully  defended  themselves 
for  two  days.  Finally  Sir  Cahir  was  forced  to  have  one 
of  the  guns  from  Culmore  brought  up  and  trained  on 
the  two  houses,  whereupon  those  within  surrendered. 
The  men  were  made  prisoners,  contrary  to  the  advice  of 
Neil  Garv,  who  had  counselled  Sir  Cahir  to  kill  every  one 
without  distinction.1  The  women  and  children  were 
eventually  allowed  to  go  free,  but  not,  we  are  given  to 
understand,  before  they  had  been  stripped  and  very 
villainously  used.3  Lady  Paulett  and  Mrs.  Montgomery, 
the  Bishop's  wife,  were  the  only  women  detained.  They 
were  sent  off  to  Birt  Castle.  Derry  itself  was  spoiled  of 
everything  it  possessed  of  value,  and  was  then  burnt 
to  the  ground.  The  church  and  the  fort  were  the  only 
two  buildings  which  defied  the  flames  and  remained 
standing.4 

The  behaviour  of  Neil  Garv  during  the  taking  of  Derry 
was  peculiar  and  very  characteristic.  In  place  of  co- 
operating, as  he  had  promised,  by  surprising  Lifford 
while  O'Dogherty  was  busy  with  Derry,  he  was  irresistibly 

1  Report  of  the  surprise  of  Deny,  Gal.  State  Papers. 

2  Evidence  of  John  Lynchull  and  Doltagh  McGilliduff 
8  Deputy  to  Neil  Garv,  May  1,  1608. 

•  Cat.  State  Papers,  James,  737. 


20    SIR  CAHIR  O'DOGHERTY'S  REBELLION    [CHAP,  n 

drawn  to  the  neighbourhood  of  the  principal  city  by  the 
prospect  of  the  spoil  to  be  there  gained.  Lifford  itself 
was  no  richer  than  Culmore  ;  both  were  merely  military 
stations  necessary  for  the  protection  of  Derry  in  its  then 
unwalled  state,  but  offering  no  attractions  in  the  way  of 
plunder.  The  wealth  of  the  district  was  undoubtedly 
in  Derry.  Whether,  but  for  his  inveterate  avarice,  Neil 
Garv  could  have  carried  out  his  part  of  the  compact  and 
seized  Lifford  we  do  not  know.  All  that  is  certain  is 
that  the  idea  of  Sir  Cahir  seizing  the  wealthy  city  while 
he  himself  was  occupied  with  an  unproductive  fort  was 
intolerable  to  Neil  Garv.  He  resolved  in  any  case  to  be 
near  enough  to  the  scene  of  action  to  keep  a  watchful  eye 
on  Sir  Cahir  and  his  division  of  the  spoil.  With  this 
mercenary  end  in  view  he  turned  the  aged  Ineenduv, 
and  all  her  retainers,  out  of  Mongavlin  Castle,  and  there  in- 
stalled himself  so  that  he  could  better  watch  the  operations 
in  Derry.  He  even  adopted  the  precautionary  measure 
of  sending  some  of  his  men  into  Derry  with  orders  to 
seize  anything  they  could  lay  hands  on,  and  to  estimate  as 
far  as  was  in  their  power  the  total  value  of  the  spoil. 
The  first  part  of  these  orders  Neil  Garv's  men  carried  out 
with  no  small  degree  of  success,  for  they  managed  to 
appropriate  a  considerable  share  of  the  booty,  including 
the  Bishop  of  Derry's  two  best  horses,  with  which  they 
returned  in  triumph  to  Mongavlin.  Whether  it  was  that 
Sir  Cahir  was  incensed  at  these  unauthorised  seizures, 
or  merely  disgusted  at  Neil  Garv's  failure  to  live  up  to 
his  agreement  in  the  matter  of  Lifford,  cannot  be  decided 
with  certainty,  nor  is  it  a  matter  of  importance.  For 
one  reason  or  the  other,  or  possibly  from  mere  niggard- 
liness, he  contented  himself  with  sending  his  associate  in 
rebellion  two  small  silver  cups  as  his  share  of  the  spoil. 
To  a  man  of  Neil  Garv's  covetous  nature  such  an  offering 
was  little  less  than  an  insult,  and  he  returned  the  cups 
with  the  announcement  that  he  would  have  half  the  spoil 
or  nothing. 

Foiled  in  his  design  of  sharing  the  Derry  plunder,  Neil 
Garv  looked  eagerly  right  and  left  for  other  opportunities 
of  turning  the  situation  to  his  financial  advantage.  Leaving 
Mongavlin  to  be  reoccupied  by  the  unfortunate  Ineenduv, 
he  rode  to  Lifford,  where  he  succeeded  in  persuading  Sir 
Richard  Hansard  that  the  Lifford  cattle  ran  a  serious 


1608]    FAILURE   OF   O'DOGHERTY'S   REBELLION    21 

danger  of  being  seized  upon  by  the  rebels  if  they  remained 
where  they  were.  He  suggested  driving  them  up  to  his 
own  fastnesses  in  the  Finn  Valley,  whence  the  garrison 
would  be  able  to  draw  upon  them  for  their  needs  as  re- 
quired. Hansard,  in  a  weak  moment,  agreed,  and  Neil 
Garv  went  off  with  the  cattle,  which,  needless  to  say, 
were  never  seen  again.1 

In  the  meanwhile,  Sir  Cahir  had  made  no  attempt  to 
retain  possession  of  the  Derry  fort,  but,  as  quickly  as 
might  be,  made  his  way  back  to  Culmorc  with  his  plunder 
and  his  prisoners,  with  which  latter  he  was  greatly  em- 
barrassed, as  the  fort  was  too  small  to  accommodate 
them.  An  easy  way  out  of  the  difficulty  would  have 
been  to  have  adopted  Neil  Garv's  advice,  and  to  have 
put  them  all  to  the  sword ;  but  Sir  Cahir  was  no  cold- 
blooded butcher.  He  addressed  a  short  harangue  to  his 
captives,  in  which  he  gave  them  the  option  of  remaining 
where  they  were  or  of  being  put  across  the  water  into 
Coleraine.  It  is  not  surprising  that  they  preferred  the 
latter  alternative.  All  the  prisoners  (including  Captain 
and  Mrs.  Hart  and  their  infant  son,  who  had  been  safely 
sent  over  from  Buncrana  the  day  before)  were  ferried 
across  the  Foyle  and  set  at  liberty.* 

It  is  quite  evident  that,  in  spite  of  the  two  initial  successes 
above  described,  and  in  spite  of  further  successes  at 
Dogh  Castle,  Dunalong  and  Donegal  Castle,  all  of  which 
had  been  seized  without  bloodshed,1  Sir  Cahir  realised 
from  the  first  that  his  rebellion  had  failed  owing  to  the 
defalcation  of  Neil  Garv  ;  for,  from  the  moment  of  his 
capture  of  Derry,  he  assumed  the  attitude  of  a  fugitive 
in  lieu  of  that  of  a  conqueror.  Phelim  Reagh,  with  a 
garrison  of  thirty,  was  left  at  Culmore,  and  Sir  Cahir 
himself — leaving  his  wife,  Lady  Paulett  and  Mrs.  Mont- 
gomery in  Birt  Castle — fled  west  across  Lough  Swilly 
to  Fanad,  where  he  was  joined  by  Shane  McManus  Oge 
O'Donnell. 

Although  O'Dogherty's  rebellion  had,  as  things  turned 
out,  dwindled  down  to  a  local  splutter  on  the  west  shore  of 
the  Foyle,  indications  were  not  wanting  that  the  aspirations 
of  those  interested  had  aimed  at  a  far  more  widely  extended 
movement.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that,  had  Sir  Cahir 

1  Cal.  State  Papers,  James,  682.  *  Capt.  Hart's  Letter. 

3  Neil  Garv  to  Deputy,  April  25, 1608. 


22     SIR  CAHIR  O'DOGHERTY'S  REBELLION    [CHAP,  n 

occupied  and  defended  the  fort  of  Derry  instead  of  running 
off  with  the  spoil,  and  had  Neil  Garv  surprised  and  occupied 
Lifford  (which  had  probably  been  within  his  powers) 
many  others,  who  were  waiting  to  trim  their  sails  to  the 
wind  that  blew  strongest,  would  have  raised  the  standard 
of  rebellion.  As  it  was — with  no  place  of  importance  in 
the  occupation  of  the  rebels  except  Culmore — the  co- 
operation in  other  parts  of  Ulster  was  of  a  very  half- 
hearted character.  In  Coleraine,  Shane  Carragh  O'Cahan 
(the  brother  of  Sir  Donnell  O'Cahan,  who  was  at  the  time 
a  prisoner  in  Dublin  Castle)  took  advantage  of  the  spirit 
of  unrest  which  was  abroad  to  murder  two  of  the  O'Mullans 
with  whom  he  had  for  long  been  on  bad  terms,1  and  to 
indulge  in  a  little  local  brigandage ;  but  as  a  rebel  against 
British  authority  he  was  never  formidable.  Farther  south 
in  Armagh,  Oghie  Oge  O'Hanlon,  a  degenerate  son  of 
old  Sir  Oghie,  and  a  brother-in-law  of  Sir  Cahir,  joined 
forces  with  Brian  McArt's  illegitimate  son  Art  and  estab- 
lished a  brigand  band,  which  for  a  time  terrorised  the 
district ;  but  here  again  the  rebels'  energies  were  chiefly 
directed  to  the  spoliation  of  their  own  countrymen  rather 
than  to  acts  of  political  revolution.  The  O'Hagans  and 
O'Quins  of  Tyrone  were  known  to  be  ripe  for  rebellion, 
and  Art  McBaron,  Brian  Maguire  and  Tirlough  McHenry 
were  also  reported  to  be  in  a  restless  and  rebellious  mood. 
None  of  these,  as  events  turned  out,  made  any  active 
move  towards  rebellion,  but  Brian  ne  Savagh  McMahon 
and  Cormac  McBaron's  son  Brian  Crossach  showed  more 
enterprise,  and — taking  advantage  of  the  temporary 
paralysis  of  authority  which  they  knew  must  follow  on 
any  rising — pillaged  right  and  left  to  their  hearts'  content.1 
Even  as  far  south  as  the  Pale  there  were  elements  of 
disturbance,  for  it  came  out  in  evidence  that  promise  of 
help  had  been  received  from  no  less  a  personage  than 
Lord  Gormanston,  leader  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Pale 
Lords.* 

All  through  1608  and  1609  there  were  persistent  rumours 
afloat  as  to  Tyrone's  return  with  irresistible  Continental 
forces  at  his  back,  and  such  was  the  glamour  surrounding 
the  name  and  office  of  O'Neil  that — though  the  exiled  Earl 

1  Sir  Thomas  Phillips  to  Salisbury,  May  10,  1608. 
*  Cal.  State  Papers,  James,  775. 
a  Doltagh  McGilliduff's  confession. 


1608]  BELIEF   IN   TYRONE'S   RETURN  23 

was  now  over  sixty  years  of  age — there  was  a  very  general 
desire  among  his  innumerable  relatives  in  the  north  to 
act  in  such  a  way  as  to  win  the  approval  of  the  great  man 
at  his  second  coming.  With  the  exception  of  Shane 
Carragh,  all  the  prominent  movers  in  O'Dogherty's  re- 
bellion were  connected  with  the  Earl  of  Tyrone  by  ties  of 
blood,  and  all  were,  as  a  natural  consequence,  bitterly 
hostile  to  the  rival  lines  of  Shane  O'Neil  and  of  Tirlough 
Luineach. 


CHAPTER  III 

SUPPRESSION   OF   o'DOGHERTY'S   REBELLION 

IT  was  unfortunate  in  the  extreme  for  the  promoters  of 
O'Dogherty's  rebellion  that  the  Lord  Deputy  called  upon 
to  deal  with  the  situation  should  have  been  Sir  Arthur 
Chichester.  Unlike  other  Deputies  with  a  previous  ex- 
perience of  Ireland,  Chichester  had  served  his  entire 
apprenticeship  as  a  military  commander  in  the  north.  No 
part  of  his  education  had  been  at  the  hands  of  the  political 
intriguers  who  hovered  around  Dublin  Castle.  This  was 
at  once  made  clear  by  the  vigour  and  promptitude  of  his 
repressive  measures.  Sir  Richard  Winkfield,  the  Marshal, 
and  Sir  Oliver  Lambert,  who  were  both  at  Newry  at  the 
time,  received  orders  to  march  with  all  despatch  to  Donegal, 
and  there  re'store  order.  Shane  O 'Neil's  grandson,  Sir 
Henry  Oge,  was  invited — as  a  sign  of  his  personal  con- 
demnation of  the  rebellion — to  muster  all  the  forces  he 
could  at  Kinard  (Caledon)  and  join  the  punitive  column. 
Henry  Oge,  who  knew  well  enough  that  he  was  fighting  his 
own  battle,  responded  with  alacrity,  and  the  Marshal  and 
he  joined  forces  at  Omagh  ;  Tirlough  McArt  attached 
himself  to  the  expedition  at  Newtown,  and  Derry  was 
reached  little  more  than  a  month  after  the  outbreak  of 
the  rebellion. 

Chichester's  aim  in  dealing  with  the  repression  of  the 
rebellion  was — in  his  own  words — to  make  it  "  short  and 
thick."  His  method  of  putting  this  policy  into  actual 
practice  is  not  one  which  adds  greatly  to  the  lustre  of  his 
name.  He  issued  public  proclamations  in  which  induce- 
ments were  held  out  to  all  the  natives  within  the  sphere 
of  the  rebellion  to  play  the  Judas  to  their  own  friends 
and  relatives,  if  these  happened  in  any  way  to  have  been 
implicated.  Any  one  harbouring  a  rebel  was  to  be  treated 
as  though  a  rebel  himself,  and  any  one  giving  up  a  rebel 
was  to  have  a  free  pardon  even  though  himself  implicated, 
and  in  addition  was  to  have  a  grant  of  the  convicted  man's 

24 


1608]    CHICHESTER'S"  SHORT  &  THICK  "METHODS  25 

lands.  The  expedient  was  by  no  means  one  of  which  to 
be  proud,  but  it  was  nevertheless  in  a  measure  justified 
by  its  astonishing  success.  In  the  case  of  Neil  Garv, 
Chichester  went  outside  the  terms  of  the  general  proclama- 
tion and  made  a  special  offer.  He  authorised  O'Dogherty's 
false  ally  to  raise  a  force  of  one  hundred  foot  and 
twenty-five  horse  at  the  King's  charge,  and  to  deal  sum- 
marily under  martial  law  with  any  and  all  whom  he  should 
convict  of  participation  in  the  late  rebellion.1  At  the  same 
time,  in  order  to  make  sure  of  Neil  Garv's  adhesion, 
Chichester  forwarded  to  the  Privy  Council  a  recommen- 
dation for  a  considerable  extension  of  his  estates.  He 
added  a  personal  assurance  that,  until  such  time  as  the 
promised  estates  could  be  legally  transferred,  Neil  Garv 
should  be  entitled  to  a  pension  equal  to  the  estimated 
revenue  derivable  from  the  lands. 

It  is  not  to  be  assumed,  from  a  consideration  of  the 
above  overtures,  that  Chichester  in  the  smallest  degree 
trusted  the  man  on  whom  he  was  conferring  these  remark- 
able favours  and  powers.  That  he  was  far  from  doing  so 
is  made  quite  clear  by  his  letter  to  Salisbury  of  May  4, 
in  which  he  expresses  his  keen  distrust  of  the  instrument 
he  proposes  to  employ.  His  reason  for  so  employing  him 
was  that,  geographically,  Neil  Garv  was  in  a  position  to 
bring  retribution  upon  the  rebels  some  weeks  before  any 
Government  force  could  possibly  arrive  on  the  spot.  With 
a  view  to  guarding  against  any  possible  misapplication 
of  the  force  which  Neil  Garv  was  authorised  to  raise, 
Chichester  took  his  son  Nachten  from  Dublin  University, 
where  he  was  studying,  and  confined  him  in  Dublin  Castle 
as  a  hostage  for  his  father's  good  faith.  In  this  par- 
ticular matter  Neil  Garv's  good  faith  was  never  tested, 
for,  although  he  took  the  Government  money,  he  made 
no  attempt  to  raise  the  forces  for  which  he  had  been  paid.* 

In  early  June  the  relief  force  reached  Derry,  which, 
with  the  exception  of  the  church  and  fort,  was  found  a 
heap  of  ruins.  Captain  Vaughan  was  left  in  charge  of 
the  fort,  and  an  advance  was  then  made  on  Culmore. 
Phelim  Reagh  had  boasted  to  Sir  Cahir  that  he  would 
never  yield  this  place  while  he  had  a  man  left  alive ;  but, 
on  the  approach  of  the  Marshal,  he  thought  better  of  his 

1  Chichester  to  Neil  Garv,  May  1,  1608. 

2  Evidence  at  trial  of  Neil  Garv,  Cal,  State  Papers. 


26          SUPPRESSION   OF   THE  REBELLION     [CHAP,  m 

resolve,  and  made  off  round  the  Donegal  coast  in  two  small 
English  ships  that  had  been  captured  by  the  rebels  at  the 
outset  of  the  rising.  With  him  he  took  all  the  spoil,  and 
the  smaller  guns  from  the  fort.  The  fort  itself  he  burned 
as  far  as  was  possible.  As  pursuit  was  at  the  moment 
impracticable,  Lieutenant  Baker  was  left  in  charge  of  the 
fort,  and  the  attentions  of  the  relief  force  were  directed 
to  Birt  Castle  on  the  shores  of  Lough  Swilly.  This  Castle 
proved  too  strong  to  be  attempted  by  assault,  and,  as 
there  were  obvious  objections  to  leaving  it  in  undisturbed 
occupation  of  the  enemy,  it  was  finally  determined  that 
the  Marshal  and  Sir  Oliver  Lambert  should  remain  behind 
to  await  the  arrival  of  a  demi-culverin,  which  Sir  Ralph 
Bingley  was  bringing  round  by  sea,  while  the  rest  of  the 
Government  force  pursued  Sir  Cahir  farther  west  into 
Fanad. 

Inishowen — except  for  Birt  Castle — was  now  clear  of 
rebels,  and  the  rebellion  indeed,  as  a  rebellion,  may  be 
said  to  have  been  dead.  The  punishment  of  the  principals, 
however,  had  yet  to  be  taken  in  hand.  A  price  of  £500 
was  put  on  Sir  Cahir's  head,  and  of  £200  on  that  of  Phelim 
Reagh.  The  former  made  no  attempt  to  oppose  the  ad- 
vance of  the  Government  forces  into  Fanad,  but  on  their 
approach  retreated  still  farther  west  to  McSweeney  Dogh's 
country.  The  Government  forces  under  Sir  Richard 
Winkfield  the  Marshal,  Sir  Thomas  Ridgeway  the  Treasurer, 
and  Sir  Henry  Folliott,  and  accompanied  by  Neil  Garv, 
Tirlough  McArt  and  Sir  Henry  Oge,  followed  in  close 
pursuit. 

Sir  Cahir,  although  showing  no  disposition  to  fight, 
none  the  less  succeeded  in  leaving  his  mark  on  his  enemy, 
for  on  June  5  Sir  Henry  Oge  was  murdered  in  his  sleep. 
Sir  Henry  had  insisted  on  taking  up  his  quarters  in  a 
comfortable  house  which  stood  some  little  way  outside 
the  boundaries  of  the  camp.  Apparently  a  very  careless 
watch  was  kept,  and  some  of  Sir  Cahir's  men  broke  in  and 
killed  him  before  the  alarm  could  be  given.  Two  of  his 
sons,  who  were  with  him  in  the  house,  managed  to  escape, 
but  Tirlough,  the  elder,  was  so  badly  wounded  that  he 
subsequently  died.  Satisfied  with  this  exploit,  Sir  Cahir 
then  made  off  with  600  men  and  several  droves  of  cattle 
to  the  densely  wooded  and  precipitous  region  of  Glenveagh, 
where  he  might  reasonably  hope  to  be  safe  from  pursuit. 


1608]  SIR  CAHIR  IN   GLENVEAGH  27 

It  was,  however,  no  part  of  the  Government  plan  to  give 
the  chief  rebel  any  breathing-time.  The  force  was  once 
more  subdivided,  Sir  Thomas  Ridge  way  with  Neil  Garv 
and  Sir  Tirlough  McArt  pursuing  Sir  Cahir,  while  Sir  Henry 
Folliott  remained  behind  to  attempt  the  capture  of  Dogh 
Castle,  which  was  defended  by  Neil  McSweeney  and  Shane 
McManus  Oge  O'Donnell.  Dogh  Castle  is  described  by 
Chichester  as  being  almost  equal  in  strength  to  Dunluce, 
and  practicably  impregnable  by  direct  assault.  The  only 
course,  therefore,  which  was  open  to  Sir  Henry  Folliott  was 
to  invest  the  place  till  such  time  as  the  demi-culverin, 
which  had  been  requisitioned  for  the  reduction  of  Birt, 
should  have  been  passed  on  to  Dogh.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  culverin  arrived  at  Birt  about  the  same  time  that 
Sir  Thomas  Ridgeway  reached  Glenveagh.  Two  shots, 
we  are  told,  were  fired  from  it,  which  made  little  impression 
on  the  masonry,  but  after  the  second  shot  Lady  O'Dogherty 
came  out  and  surrendered.  She  and  her  sister-in-law, 
together  with  Lady  Paulett  and  Mrs.  Montgomery,  were 
then  taken  on  board  H.M.S.  Tramontana,  which  lay  at 
anchor  in  Lough  Swilly,  and  which  was  destined  to  ac- 
commodate several  more  prisoners  before  she  finally  set 
sail  for  Dublin. 

The  demi-culverin — having  fulfilled  its  purpose  at  Birt 
— was  at  once  sent  round  by  sea  to  assist  in  the  reduction 
of  Dogh.  During  its  transit,  advantage  may  be  taken  of 
the  opportunity  to  follow  the  movements  of  Sir  Thomas 
Ridgeway  in  his  pursuit  of  Sir  Cahir  to  Glenveagh.  The 
country  intervening  between  the  latter  place  and  Dogh 
was  of  so  boggy  a  nature  that  the  direct  route  was  barely 
passable  by  mounted  men.  Sir  Cahir,  whose  600  men  were 
all  mounted,  had  reached  his  objective  by  a  more  round- 
about but  firmer  route.  Ridgeway's  men  were,  for  the  most 
part,  on  foot,  and — as  time  was  a  factor  of  the  first  im- 
portance— he  resolved  to  leave  his  Amounted  men  behind, 
and  to  lead  the  rest  across  the  flat  morasses  of  central 
Donegal.  Their  destination  was  reached  on  June  9.  It 
was  at  once  seen  that  Sir  Cahir's  retreat  had  been  well 
chosen.  Never  was  any  place  more  clearly  designed  by 
nature  for  defensive  purposes  than  the  Glen  in  which 
Lough  Veagh  lies.  On  three  sides  precipitous  mountain 
slopes  run  down  to  near  the  water's  edge.  Dense  woods 
choke  the  ground  that  lies  between  the  water  and  the 


28  SUPPRESSION  OF  THE  REBELLION   [CHAP,  in 

hills.  For  an  attacking  force  to  have  passed  forward 
through  these  narrow  gorges,  barricaded  with  fallen  trees, 
would  have  been  a  work  of  desperation  even  against  a 
handful  of  defenders.  Sir  Cahir's  force,  however,  was  no 
mere  handful.  It  outnumbered  Ridge  way's  by  three  or 
four  to  one,1  and  was  provided  with  ample  food  supplies. 
In  spite,  however,  of  his  marked  advantage  in  numbers 
and  position,  Sir  Cahir  did  not  think  fit  to  await  the  attack, 
but  made  off  across  the  hills  before  Ridgeway's  force  was 
even  in  sight.  All  that  remained,  as  a  memento  of  his 
recent  presence,  was  a  greyhound  and  the  bodies  of  six 
dead  men.8  No  excuse  for  this  most  inglorious  display 
on  the  part  of  Sir  Cahir  can  be  found  except  in  the  possi- 
bility that  Neil  Garv  may  have  designedly  deceived  him 
as  to  the  numbers  and  equipment  of  the  attacking  force. 
We  know,  from  the  evidence  of  Neil  Garv's  two  brothers, 
and  from  the  confession  of  Phelim  Reagh,  that  Neil  Garv 
sent  two  successive  messengers  to  Sir  Cahir  warning  him 
of  Ridgeway's  approach,  and  counselling  him  to  leave  the 
cattle  where  he  (Neil  Garv)  could  find  them,  and  to  take 
to  his  heels.  He  excused  himself  from  joining  Sir  Cahir 
at  the  moment  on  the  grounds  that  he  was  staying  behind 
in  order  to  get  possession  of  Ridgeway's  cattle,  which  he 
undertook  to  add  to  Sir  Cahir's  herds,  and  to  secrete  in  some 
safe  hiding-place  where  that  young  chieftain  would  be 
able  to  find  them  when  required.8  As  soon  as  he  had 
discharged  this  duty  he  undertook  to  join  the  younger 
man. 

It  is  quite  obvious,  from  what  we  know  of  Neil  Garv, 
that  his  warning  to  Sir  Cahir  was  dictated  not  so  much  by 
concern  for  that  young  man's  safety  as  by  the  desire  to 
possess  himself  of  the  abandoned  cattle.  Sir  Cahir  fell 
into  the  trap — if  such  it  was — and,  having  delivered  his 
cattle  into  the  hands  of  his  crafty  and  treacherous  friend, 
fled  across  the  hills  into  Fermanagh.  It  now  remained  for 
Neil  Garv  to  get  the  cattle  safely  across  into  his  own  country 
at  Castle  Finn,  where  he  had  every  intention  that  they 
should  permanently  remain.  He  accordingly  applied  to 
Ridgeway  for  two  days'  leave,  which  was  granted.  Sir 

1  See  Ridgeway  to  Salisbury,  July  3,  1608  ;  also  Dan  O'Dogherty's 
confession,  and  Col.  State  Papers,  781  and  782. 

*  Ridgeway  to  Salisbury,  July  3,  1608. 

8  Confession  of  Dan  O'Dogherty  ;  also  examination  of  Phelim  Reagh, 
August  3,  1608. 


1608]  ARREST  OF  NEIL   GARY  29 

Cahir's  abandoned  cattle  were  safely  got  away,  and  at 
the  expiry  of  his  leave  Neil  Garv  once  more  joined  Ridge- 
way's  force  at  Glenveagh.  In  the  meanwhile,  however, 
his  two  brothers  had  informed  against  him,  and  he  was 
arrested.  The  evidence  against  him  was  of  so  damning 
and  conclusive  a  nature  that  Ridgeway  had  no  hesitation 
as  to  the  course  to  be  pursued.  He  turned  his  back  on 
Glenveagh,  and,  with  his  prisoner,  marched  back  to 
Lough  Swilly,  where  Neil  Garv  was  added  to  the  party 
already  on  board  the  Tramontane,.  In  view  of  the  im- 
portance of  the  prisoner,  and  of  the  serious  nature  of  the 
charges  levelled  against  him,  Ridgeway  decided  that  it 
would  be  best  that  both  he  himself  and  Neil  Garv's  two 
brothers  should  sail  for  Dublin  on  the  same  ship. 

From  Glenveagh  Sir  Cahir  rode  straight  down  to  Fer- 
managh, where  he  captured  a  herd  of  Connor  Roe  Maguire's 
cattle,  with  which  he  made  his  way  up  into  Tyrone.  Here 
he  no  doubt  hoped  and  expected  to  find  himself  at  the  head 
of  a  large  following  of  sympathisers.  In  this  hope  he 
was  doomed  to  disappointment.  A  man  who  ceaselessly 
turns  tail,  and  who  has  not  even  one  stand-up  fight  to 
his  credit,  is  not  calculated  to  inspire  confidence  of  final 
victory.  The  country  viewed  him  with  little  enthusiasm, 
and,  when  he  started  indiscriminate  pillage  in  order  to 
support  his  men,  he  became  very  markedly  unpopular. 
He  stayed  nine  days  only  in  Tyrone,  and  then  made  his 
way  back, to  Donegal.  His  last  act  was  to  burn  the  late 
Sir  Henry  Oge's  town  at  Kinard.  He  made  no  attempt  on 
the  Castle  itself.1 

Sir  Cahir  arrived  back  at  Dogh  on  July  4,  almost  at 
the  same  moment  that  the  expected  demi-culverin  reached 
that  place  by  sea  from  Birt.  It  is  probable  that  his  in- 
tention was  to  throw  himself  into  the  Castle,  which  not 
only  bore  the  reputation  of  being  the  strongest  fortress 
in  North- West  Ulster,  but  which  also — as  will  presently  be 
seen — offered  special  facilities  for  escape  by  sea  in  the  event 
of  capture.  Except  on  this  theory  it  is  difficult  to  account 
for  his  reappearance  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Sir  Henry 
Folliott's  forces.  Sir  Cahir  was  reported  to  have  700  men 
with  him,  and  the  first  accounts  which  reached  Chichester 
were  to  the  effect  that  Folliott  had  attacked  the  rebel, 
and  that  a  skirmish  had  ensued  on  July  5  in  the  course  of 

1  Gal.  State  Papers,  James,  705. 


30         SUPPRESSION  OF  THE  REBELLION     [CHAP,  in 

which  Sir  Cahir  had  been  killed.  This  report  was  brought 
verbally  to  Chichester,  during  his  stay  at  Mount  Norris, 
by  Captain  Vaughan,  the  Constable  of  Derry  fort.  The 
report,  as  afterwards  transpired,  was  very  far  from  ac- 
curate. There  had  been  no  engagement.  Sir  Cahir — 
on  arriving  within  sight  of  Sir  Henry's  camp — had  been 
killed  by  his  own  people  in  anticipation  of  the  reward  which 
had  been  publicly  offered.  Some  such  conclusion  had  not 
been  altogether  unexpected  by  Chichester,  who  had  fore- 
told with  some  confidence  that,  should  Sir  Cahir  return 
to  Donegal,  he  would  inevitably  fall  a  victim  to  arrange- 
ments entered  into  with  his  own  people  since  his  departure. 
There  is  no  record  as  to  who  was  the  recipient  of  the  £500 
reward,  but  we  know  that  the  money  was  actually  paid  to 
some  person  unnamed.1 

Sir  Cahir's  death  was  the  forerunner  of  a  series  of 
calamities  which  in  quick  succession  overtook  the  rebel 
combination.  Dogh  Castle,  after  withstanding  100  shot 
from  the  demi-culverin,  was  forced  to  surrender;  but  not 
before  Shane  McManus  Oge  and  the  majority  of  the 
occupants  had  managed  to  escape  by  sea  to  Tory  Island. 
This  was  only  a  beginning  of  misfortunes.  On  the  day 
following  Sir  Cahir's  treacherous  murder,  Shane  Carragh 
O'Cahan  was  in  turn  betrayed  by  the  McShanes  of  Glen- 
conkein  in  whose  country  he  was  hiding.8  They  delivered 
him  over  alive  to  Sir  Francis  Roe  at  Mountjoy,  who  trans- 
ferred him  to  Dungannon,  where  in  due  course  he  was 
tried  and  executed.  This  important  capture  was  followed 
a  fortnight  later  by  that  of  Phelim  Reagh  McDavitt. 
Spies  brought  news  to  the  Marshal  that  Sir  Cahir's  foster- 
brother  and  partner  in  rebellion  was  hiding  in  a  wood 
six  miles  from  the  camp.  The  wood  was  surrounded  and 
searched,  but  nothing  discovered.  A  second  search, 
however,  proved  more  successful.  The  fugitive  was 
discovered  and  secured,  and  was  sent  under  escort  to 
Lifford  to  await  his  trial.  By  this  time  Chichester  him- 
self had  moved  north.  After  spending  some  time  at 
Mount  Norris  in  Co.  Armagh,  he  moved  on  to  Dun- 
gannon where  he  held  the  first  of  a  series  of  assizes  which 
were  little  more  merciful  in  their  dealings  than  those 
presided  over  eighty  years  later  by  the  notorious  Jeffreys. 

1  Chichester  to  Privy  Council,  September  12,  1608. 
*  Ibid.,  August  3,  1608. 


1608]  CHICHESTER'S  ASSIZES  31 

At  Dungannon,  Shane  Carragh  was  tried  under  common 
law  by  an  exclusively  Irish  jury  con; posed  in  equal  parts 
of  O'Hagans,  O'Quins,  Donnellys  and  Devlins,  the  first 
two  representing  the  Tyrone  faction,  and  the  last  two 
that  of  Shane  O'Neil.  He  was  found  guilty  and  con- 
demned to  a  traitor's  death,  i.e.,  to  be  hanged,  drawn 
and  quartered.  Chichester  reports  that  the  natives  were 
much  impressed,  and  indeed  terrified,  by  the  spectacle 
of  this  horrid  form  of  death,  which  was  new  to  them,  as 
it  was  not  permissible  under  martial  law.  Some  twenty 
other  minor  rebels  at  the  same  time  underwent  the  more 
ordinary  penalty  of  hanging.  There  was  no  lack  of 
prisoners  to  be  tried.  Chichester's  determination  had 
been  to  make  the  suppression  of  the  rebellion  "  short  and 
thick,"  and  the  methods  which  he  had  used  to  secure 
that  end  were  productive  of  results  which  almost  surpassed 
expectations.  Prisoners  were  brought  in  day  by  day  by 
their  own  kinsmen  and  associates.  All  those  who  w«re 
proved  to  have  harboured  rebels  were  hanged  without 
mercy,  except  in  cases  where  the  rebels  had  forced  their 
company  on  those  with  whom  they  were  found.  Chichester 
enlarges  with  much  pride  on  the  great  care  which  was  taken 
to  distinguish  between  these  two  classes. 

From  Dungannon,  Chichester  and  his  legal  retinue 
passed  on  through  the  famous  woods  of  Glenconkein  to 
Coleraine,  where  the  performance  was  repeated,  and 
another  score  or  so  of  victims  were  hanged.  The  Bann 
and  the  Mourne  were  then  crossed  to  Lifford,  where  Phelim 
Reagh  was  awaiting  trial.  His  execution,  and  that  of 
a  number  of  minor  offenders,  quickly  followed  on  the 
arrival  of  the  Court. 

The  work  of  the  law  was  now  finished.  Chichester  had, 
as  usual,  lived  up  to  his  principle  of  being  strictly  just  to 
the  law-abiding,  and  utterly  pitiless  towards  mutiny. 
The  only  important  rebel  now  remaining  unaccounted 
for  was  Shane  McManus  Oge,  who  was  reported  to  have 
returned  to  the  neighbourhood  of  Dogh  Castle.  No 
sooner  were  the  assizes  over  than  Chichester  set  out  west- 
ward to  complete  the  work  of  retribution.  In  this  case 
he  was  disappointed  of  his  vengeance,  for  on  arriving  at 
Dogh  it  was  found  that  Shane  McManus  had  once  more 
made  off  to  Tory  Island,  eleven  miles  from  the  mainland. 
In  the  circumstances  Chichester  decided  to  leave  Sir 


32          SUPPRESSION  OF  THE  REBELLION    [CHAP,  m 

Henry  Folliott  to  pursue  the  culprit,  while  he  himself 
returned  by  way  of  Glenveagh,  where  some  of  the  rebellious 
O'Gallaghers  were  reported  to  be  in  hiding.  This  course 
was  pursued,  and,  after  an  unpleasant  cross-country 
march,  Glenveagh  was  reached.  Here  the  principal  O'Gal- 
lagher  concerned  and  several  of  his  associates  were  found 
to  be  in  hiding  on  one  of  the  islands  of  the  lake.  Being 
surrounded  on  all  sides,  escape  was  out  of  the  question, 
and  O'Gallagher's  fate  appeared  to  be  sealed.  Chichester, 
however,  was  still  prepared  to  bargain  with  him  for  his 
life,  and  it  was  eventually  agreed  that  he  should  go  free 
if  he  killed  three  or  four  of  his  best  associates  on  the 
island.  This  he  did,  and  departed  in  peace.1 

In  the  meanwhile  Sir  Henry  Folliott  had  been  prevented 
by  adverse  winds  from  attempting  the  passage  across  the 
eleven  miles  of  sea  to  Tory  Island.  On  August  25  the 
weather  conditions  moderated  sufficiently  to  warrant  an 
attempt  being  made,  and  100  men  were  embarked  in 
small  boats.  The  north-west  wind,  however,  once  more 
arose,  and  scattered  the  boats  in  all  directions,  and  the 
attempt  had  to  be  abandoned.  Early  in  September  a 
second  attempt  was  made,  and  the  island  was  reached. 
In  the  Castle  ten  men  were  discovered  under  the  command 
of  a  Constable,  who,  on  the  approach  of  the  flotilla,  ap- 
peared on  the  battlements  and  asked  for  a  parley.  This 
was  granted,  and  the  Constable  left  the  Castle,  which  was 
situated  on  a  detached  island,  and  crossed  the  channel 
to  the  main  island,  where  Folliott  and  his  lieutenants 
awaited  him.  The  conduct  of  their  Constable  aroused 
certain  suspicions  in  the  minds  of  the  garrison,  and,  as 
he  was  on  the  point  of  embarking,  a  man  named  McSweeney 
jumped  into  the  boat  with  him.  McSweeney  was  not 
allowed  to  be  present  at  the  parley  between  Folliott  and 
the  Constable,  but  was  taken  aside  and  independently 
interviewed  by  Captain  Gore,  while  the  other  two  con- 
versed at  a  distance. 

The  Constable  opened  proceedings  by  asking  Folliott 
what  he  must  do  for  his  life,  and  was  told  that  he  must 
deliver  up  Shane  McManus  Oge.  This  the  Constable 
declared  to  be  impossible,  as  Shane  had  left  for  Arran 
Island  some  days  before.  He  was  then  told  that  if  he 
killed  all  his  ten  companions  and  delivered  the  Castle 

1  Chichester  to  Privy  Council,  September  12,  1608. 


1608]  END   OF  THE   REBELLION  88 

he  would  be  pardoned.  Again  the  Constable  explained 
that  this  would  be  a  feat  impossible  of  performance 
single-handed,  but  he  undertook — if  he  were  allowed  to 
select  three  men  to  co-operate  with  him — that  he  would 
deliver  the  heads  of  the  other  seven  within  two  hours. 
To  this  Folliott  agreed,  after  making  him  name  the  seven 
victims.1  One  of  those  named  happened  to  be  the  Mc- 
Sweeney  who  had  accompanied  him  in  the  boat.  With 
this  man  Captain  Gore  had,  in  the  meanwhile,  struck  a 
bargain,  which  was  identical  in  all  respects  with  that 
made  by  Folliott  with  the  Constable,  except  that  in  this 
case  the  Constable's  name  figured  among  the  victims  in 
place  of  that  of  McSweeney. 

The  two  delegates  then  returned  to  the  Castle,  where 
each  attempted  to  work  out  his  salvation  in  his  own 
peculiar  way,  with  the  result  that  in  the  end  five  out  of 
the  eleven  were  killed  and  the  survivors  pardoned.  The 
Castle,  in  which  were  found  two  young  children  of  Shane 
McManus,  was  handed  over  to  Folliott. 

Thus  ended  O'Dogherty's  rebellion.  The  principal 
offenders  had  now,  for  the  most  part,  been  summarily 
disposed  of.  Oghie  Oge  O'Hanlon  and  Art  McBrian 
McArt,  on  seeing  the  fabric  of  rebellion  collapse  on  all 
sides,  had  surrendered  at  discretion  ;  and,  as  the  part 
they  had  played  had  been  that  of  brigands  rather  than 
that  of  rebels,  they  were  spared  the  capital  penalty,  and 
were  sent  off  with  800  other  selected  ne'er-do-wells  to  fight 
for  the  King  of  Sweden  under  Colonel  Stewart,  after- 
wards famous  as  Sir  Robert  Stewart.*  Brian  ne  Savagh 
McMahon  was  the  last  of  the  more  prominent  rebels 
to  meet  his  doom.  He  remained  in  open  rebellion 
till  the  beginning  of  1609,  when  he  was  killed  in  a 
skirmish. 

The  chief  problem  remaining  was  as  to  the  disposal  of 
Sir  Donnell  O'Cahan  and  of  Neil  Garv  O'Donnell.  Both 
were  tried  by  Irish  juries  for  complicity  in  the  rebellion, 
but  in  neither  case  was  a  conviction  obtained.  In  face 
of  this  unexpected  check  to  his  designs,  Chichester  advised 
that  they  should  be  tried  by  martial  law  and  executed 
in  Dublin  Castle;  but  the  King — more  mercifully  and 
judicially  inclined — preferred  that  they  should  be  sent 

1  Cal.  State  Papers,  James,  1608,  54. 
»  Ibid.,  James,  September,  479. 


34          SUPPRESSION  OF  THE  REBELLION    [CHAP,  in 

over  to  the  Tower.1  This  was  accordingly  done,  Neil 
Gary's  brothers  being  at  the  same  time  set  free.  The 
two  political  prisoners  from  Ulster  joined  Tyrone's  brother, 
Cormac  McBaron,  who  was  already  in  the  Tower ;  and 
shortly  afterwards  Neil  Gary's  son,  Nachten,  was  taken 
from  Oxford,  whither  he  had  been  sent  after  leaving 
Dublin  University,  and  was  added  to  the  party.  The  boy, 
who  is  described  by  Chichester  as  "  a  pretty  scholar  but 
the  wickedest  boy  he  had  ever  dealt  with  in  his  life,"  * 
was  not  detained  long,*  but  the  older  prisoners  remained 
in  the  Tower  till  their  death.  They  were  given  full 
liberty  to  walk  about  the  precincts  of  the  fortress  as  they 
pleased,  and  were  generally  treated  as  first-class  misde- 
meanants.4 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Neil  Garv  richly  deserved 
his  fate,  and  may  in  fact  be  considered  fortunate  to  have 
escaped  so  lightly.  That  he  was  the  prime  instigator  of 
O'Dogherty's  rebellion,  and  that  Sir  Cahir  was  merely 
his  cat's-paw,  was  sworn  to  by  so  many  of  his  own  country- 
men that  no  doubts  can  remain  as  to  his  guilt.  Sir  Donnell 
O'Cahan's  case  was  very  different.  Chichester,  the  Lord 
Deputy,  devotes  many  letters  to  the  question  of  this 
chief's  supposed  complicity  in  the  rebellion,  but  without 
carrying  conviction  to  the  reader.  There  is  evidence 
throughout  of  an  intense  eagerness  to  prove  against  Sir 
Donnell  sufficient  to  justify  his  imprisonment  for  life, 
but  in  the  reader's  mind  the  suspicion  is  ever  present 
that  the  eagerness  arises  from  the  urgent  need  which 
existed  for  the  removal  of  Coleraine's  chief  before  that 
county  could  be  made  the  settled  home  of  the  London 
Companies.  Sir  Donnell's  chief  accuser  was  his  brother 
Shane  Carragh,  who — after  he  was  captured — volunteered 
the  statement  that  Sir  Donnell  was  behind  him  in  all  that 
he  had  done,  including  the  murder  of  the  two  O'Mullans.5 
Apart  from  this  statement — which  was  probably  volun- 
teered by  Shane  in  a  last  effort  to  save  his  own  life,  and 
which  may  therefore  be  to  a  great  extent  discounted — 
the  charges  levelled  against  Sir  Donnell  were  of  a  most 

1  Gal.  State  Papers,  James,  1609,  454  ;  see  also  Lord  of  Council  to 
Chichester,  June  15,  1608. 

*  Chichester  to  Salisbury,  June  2,  1608. 

3  Median's  Earls  of  Tyrone  and  Tyrconnett. 

*  Col.  State  Papers,  James,  1610,  727. 

8  Chichester  to  Lords  of  the  Council,  April  2,  1608. 


1608]  THEY  DIE   IN   THE  TOWER  85 

unsubstantial  and  artificial  character,1  by  the  side  of 
which  the  proved  sins  of  Neil  Garv  showed  up  very  black 
indeed.  Yet  the  same  sentence  was  meted  out  to  each. 
Both  men  were  incarcerated  for  life  in  the  Tower,  where 
Neil  Garv  died  in  1626,  and  Sir  Donnell  a  year  later. 

1  See  Cal.  State  Papers,  James,  October  31, 1609,  and  James,  1608,  p.  98. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE   ULSTER   PLANTATION 

UPON  the  expiry  of  the  unhappy  little  outbreak  known 
as  O'Dogherty's  rebellion,  Chichester  once  more  found 
leisure  to  concentrate  all  his  energies  on  the  long-cherished 
scheme  for  the  colonisation  of  Ulster  with  settlers  from 
Great  Britain.  This  scheme,  originally  conceived  by 
Elizabeth,  but  rendered  abortive  in  her  case  by  her  refusal 
to  sanction  the  introduction  of  immigrants  from  Scotland, 
was  taken  up  with  even  greater  enthusiasm  by  James  I, 
who  naturally  did  not  share  the  Queen's  prejudices. 
Prior  to  O'Dogherty's  rebellion,  James,  and  even  the 
hardened  Chichester  himself,  had  been  hampered  by 
certain  scruples  in  connection  with  the  hardship  to  in- 
dividuals which  must  always  be  inseparable  from  any 
colonisation  scheme  on  an  important  scale.  The  fact  of 
the  rebellion  wholly  cleared  Chichester's  mind  of  any  such 
scruples,  and  appreciably  weakened  those  of  the  King. 
In  an  attempt  to  overcome  such  as  remained,  he  sought 
to  justify  his  action  on  high  moral  grounds,  declining  to 
admit  that  his  aims  were  merely  mercenary.  "  Even  if 
there  were  no  reasons  of  State  for  the  Plantation,"  he 
wrote  to  Chichester  in  1612,  "  yet  would  I  pursue  it, 
esteeming  the  settling  of  religion,  the  introducing  of 
civility,  order  and  government  among  a  barbarous  and 
unsubdued  people  to  be  acts  of  piety  and  glory,  and 
worthy  always  of  a  Christian  prince  to  endeavour." l 
These  words  were  written  after  the  Great  Plantation  had 
been  actually  launched,  and  refer  to  the  unforeseen 
difficulties  and  obstacles  which  rose  up  at  each  succeeding 
stage  of  the  enterprise,  and  which  would  have  broken 
the  determination  of  men  less  resolute  in  their  purpose 
than  James  and  his  Lord  Deputy.  O'Dogherty's  rebellion 
may  have  simplified  the  Plantation  problem  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  high  moralist,  but  it  made  little  or  no 

i  King  to  Chichester,  December  21,  1612. 
36 


1608]  SCHEME   OF   DIVISION  37 

difference  to  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  its  practical 
application.  Though  ethically  justified,  it  was  still  no 
less  difficult  of  accomplishment.  The  native  population 
was  everywhere  abundant.  Their  removal  to  special 
reservations  of  their  own  represented  a  stupendous  task, 
and  yet  one  which  was  generally  recognised  to  be  essential 
to  the  success  of  the  scheme.  Both  James  and  Chichester 
knew  only  too  well  that,  unless  the  British  families, 
which  it  was  proposed  to  introduce,  were  able  to  exist  as 
a  self-contained  colony,  they  would  intermarry  with  the 
natives,  adopt  their  religion,  and  slip  back,  in  the  second 
generation,  to  their  primitive  and  unruly  ways  of  life. 
Chichester's  original  idea  had  been  a  mathematical  division 
of  each  county  into  two  parts,  of  which  one  should  be 
assigned  to  the  colonists  and  the  other  to  the  natives. 
This  idea  did  not  survive  O'Dogherty's  rebellion.  Not  only 
did  the  fact  of  that  rebellion  modify  Chichester's  sense 
of  obligation  towards  the  natives,  but  it  also  made  possible 
certain  schemes  of  allocation  which  before  could  hardly 
have  been  contemplated.  In  the  place  of  assigning  to 
the  natives  a  mathematical  half  of  each  county,  an  arrange- 
ment under  which  good  and  bad  land  alike  would  have 
fallen  to  their  lot,  Chichester  now  determined  to  relegate 
all  such  natives  as  were  not  special  grantees  under  the 
Plantation  scheme  to  the  districts  where  bog  and  mountain 
predominated.  The  hardship  of  this  arrangement  did 
not  at  first  make  itself  felt,  for  reasons  which  will  presently 
be  explained.  It  was  only  when  the  native  population  had 
increased  beyond  the  limits  which  the  lands  to  which 
they  were  relegated  were  able  to  maintain,  that  the  real 
danger  behind  the  situation  made  itself  felt. 

With  the  southern  part  of  Antrim  and  the  northern 
part  of  Down  already  established  as  a  British  settlement 
by  the  vast  purchases  of  1603,1  which  followed  on  the 
famine,  every  opportunity  seemed  to  be  offered  for  the 
consolidation  of  the  six  northern  counties  of  Ulster  into 
an  independent  colony.  In  the  three  southern  counties 
of  the  province  the  position  presented  difficulties  which 
were  less  easily  brushed  aside,  and  which  in  the  case  of 
Co.  Monaghan  were,  in  the  end,  felt  to  be  so  insuperable 
that  this  county  had  to  be  definitely  excluded  from  the 
scheme.  The  circumstances  in  the  case  of  Co.  Monaghan 

1  For  particulars  see  Elizabethan  Ulster,  Chap.  XXXI. 


38  THE  ULSTER  PLANTATION  [CHAP,  iv 

were  as  follows.  After  Sir  William  Fitzwilliam's  high- 
handed and  much  criticised  execution  of  Hugh  Roe 
McMahon  in  1591,  that  Deputy  had  declared  the  title  of 
McMahon  to  be  abolished,  and  had  taken  upon  himself 
a  redistribution  of  the  county  surface.  In  this  redis- 
tribution he  claimed  to  have  created  300  new  freeholders, 
of  whom  some  few  were  English,  but  the  great  majority 
natives.  Farney,  which  already  belonged  to  the  Earl  of 
Essex,  was  not  disturbed. 

During  the  twenty  years  which  had  elapsed  between 
Hugh  Roe's  execution  and  the  Ulster  Plantation,  the  greater 
part  of  the  English  freeholders  in  Co.  Monaghan  had, 
by  one  means  or  another,  disappeared.1  Although  Fitz- 
william's action  had  been  unconstitutional  in  the  extreme, 
it  had  never  been  declared  illegal,  and  had  in  fact  been 
tacitly  sanctioned  by  non-interference.  It  was  therefore 
felt  that  there  was  no  legal  justification  for  removing  the 
existing  freeholders,  who  were  mainly  Irish  !  (McMahons, 
McKennas,  McCabes,  McArdles,  O'Connellys,  O'Duffys 
and  McLaughlins)  for  purposes  of  Plantation.  The 
county  was  therefore  excluded  from  the  scheme,  and 
the  titles  of  the  existing  holders  were  officially  confirmed. 
Monaghan's  exclusion  from  the  Plantation  scheme  does  not 
appear  to  have  worked  beneficially  for  the  county,  for  in 
1641  we  find  it  described  as  "  the  most  barbarous,  poor 
and  despicable  county  in  the  kingdom,  Farney  excepted."  * 

The  exclusion  of  Monaghan  and  the  previous  Planta- 
tion in  1603  of  Down  and  Antrim  reduced  the  number  of 
Ulster  counties  to  be  dealt  with  to  six,  which  thenceforth 
became  known  as  the  six  escheated  counties.  The  ethics 
of  forfeiture  in  the  case  of  these  six  counties  calls  for  rather 
more  than  passing  consideration.  The  question  cannot 
well  be  dealt  with  in  general  terms,  as  each  county  had  its 
own  individual  balance-sheet  of  registered  crimes  on  the 
one  side  to  be  set  off  against  acts  of  loyal  service  on  the 
other.  The  case  for  each  will  be  found  set  out  in  brief, 
when  the  new  distribution  of  lands  to  the  Undertakers 
comes  to  be  considered.  In  the  meanwhile,  however,  the 
ethical  aspect  of  the  whole  situation  requires  consideration 
from  a  broader  point  of  view. 

1  Chichester  to  Lords,  September  12,  1606. 

8  Gal.  State  Papers,  James,  1607,  166. 

3  Lords  Justices  and  Council  to  Vane,  April  24,  1,641. 


1608]    FORFEITURE  OF  THE  CHIEFS'  INTERESTS    39 

It  is  before  all  things  important  for  any  who  would 
clearly  understand  the  situation  antecedent  to  the  Plan- 
tation to  bear  in  mind  that  the  question  of  forfeiture  was 
one  which,  in  the  first  instance,  affected  the  paramount 
chiefs  only.  In  arriving  at  a  decision  therefore  on  the  fate 
of  a  county,  or  of  a  portion  of  a  county,  the  chief's  merits 
or  demerits  were  the  only  factors  taken  into  account.  As 
the  desire  for  such  a  chief's  removal  on  the  grounds  of 
treason  were  necessarily  commensurate  with  the  desire 
to  plant  his  county  with  British  colonists,  it  is  not  sur- 
prising that — in  arriving  at  a  decision — the  limits  of  strict 
justice  were,  in  some  cases,  severely  strained.  In  such 
cases  Chichester  found  a  casuistic  justification  for  acting 
as  prosecutor  rather  than  as  judge,  in  the  claim  that 
Plantation  would  bring  peace  and  prosperity  to  all  classes 
in  Ireland,  including  the  natives  ;  and  that,  in  addition, 
the  latter  would  be  freed  from  many  galling  customs  by 
which  they  had  for  centuries  been  oppressed.  This  claim 
was  not  so  unsubstantial  as  might  appear  on  the  surface, 
nor  is  it  possible,  from  an  honest  reading  of  the  State 
Papers,  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that — hostile  though 
Chichester  might  be  to  the  rebel  chiefs — he  was  through- 
out animated  by  a  sense  of  justice  towards  the  proletariat. 
All  through  his  correspondence  with  the  King  and  with 
the  Privy  Council  on  the  subject  of  the  Plantation  and  its 
attendant  difficulties,  the  fact  stands  out  that  the  aim  of 
the  Lord  Deputy  was  not  the  extermination  or  even  the 
impoverishment  and  ill-treatment  of  the  native  rank  and 
file,  but  their  reclamation  from  their  primitive  ways. 
His  hope  was  to  woo  them  to  a  sense  of  law  and  order  and 
of  the  sanctity  of  contracts  ;  and  to  a  further  realisation 
of  the  advantages  of  regular  living,  fixity  of  tenure  and 
fixed  rents.  Such  reforms  were  obviously  impossible  while 
the  feudal  chiefs  held  sway,  for  they  struck  at  the  very 
root  of  their  power. 

The  removal  of  the  dominant  chiefs  was  therefore  the 
first,  and  by  far  the  most  important,  step  towards  a  per- 
manent settlement.  The  very  life  of  the  scheme  hung  on 
it,  and  that — to  this  end — there  was  a  certain  colouration 
of  facts  is  not  improbable.  Even  with  this  admission 
fixed  before  one's  eyes,  it  is  difficult  to  feel  for  these  fallen 
gods  either  sympathy  or  compassion.  They  were,  without 
exception,  tyrannous  and  merciless  to  those  under  them, 


40  THE  ULSTER  PLANTATION  [CHAP,  iv 

and  deadly  enemies  to  every  reform,  whether  social,  moral 
or  industrial.  So  long  as  such  rulers  governed  society, 
and  called  the  tune  in  manners  and  customs,  it  was  clearly 
hopeless  to  look  for  the  country's  escape  from  the  gloom 
of  barbarism.  It  was  therefore  argued  that,  in  order  to 
effect  a  release,  a  certain  broad  reading  of  the  case  for 
confiscation  was  allowable.  Still,  though  the  tribunal 
that  sat  on  the  sins  of  the  chiefs  may  have  been  biassed 
by  its  enthusiasm  for  the  Plantation  scheme,  it  cannot 
with  truth  be  argued  that,  in  the  case  of  four  out  of  the 
six  escheated  counties,  there  was  any  departure  from  the 
paths  of  strict  justice.  In  the  case  of  the  other  two  coun- 
ties the  action  of  the  Government  must  always  be  open  to 
unfriendly  criticism. 

Before,  however,  considering  the  case  for  the  Crown  in 
each  individual  case,  it  may  contribute  to  a  better  under- 
standing of  the  general  situation  if  Chichester's  own  pro- 
cedure is  followed.  His  first  step  was  to  look  around  for 
a  fitting  and  capable  person  to  undertake  a  survey  of  the 
lands  to  be  redistributed.  In  this  search  he  was  certainly 
not  fortunate,  for  his  ultimate  choice  fell  upon  Sir  Thomas 
Ridgeway  and  Sir  Thomas  Bodley,  who — though  no  doubt 
exemplary  citizens  in  other  respects — had  no  special 
qualifications  for  the  work  required,  and  the  result  of  whose 
efforts  left  much  to  be  desired.  Their  methods  were 
curiously  crude,  and,  though  they  spent  the  greater  part  of 
1608  and  1609  over  their  task,  it  cannot  justly  be  claimed 
that  the  result  of  their  efforts  had  much  value  as  a  guide 
to  the  superficial  area  of  the  country,  or  to  the  extent  of 
land  allotted  to  any  individual  colonist. 

The  many  and  swift  kaleidoscopic  changes  which,  for 
ten  or  twelve  years  after  the  first  influx  of  colonists,  was 
ceaselessly  at  work  on  the  surface  of  Ulster,  detract 
very  considerably  from  the  value  of  the  first  allotments 
under  the  prospectus.  A  full  record  of  these  allotments, 
with  the  name  of  each  Undertaker  and  Servitor,  and  the 
number  of  acres  assigned  him,  is  to  be  found  in  the  Carew 
MSS.  By  a  comparison  of  the  names  and  figures  there 
found  with  those  returned  in  Pynnar's  Survey  ten  years 
later,  we  get  some  idea  of  the  astonishing  amount  of  land 
which,  even  in  those  few  years,  had  changed  hands.  Many 
of  the  original  grantees  did  not  even  cross  the  Channel ; 
others,  when  they  saw  the  lands  allotted  to  them,  returned 


1609]      THE  ALLOTMENT  OF   "PROPORTIONS"       41 

hurriedly  to  England.  This  was  noticeably  the  case  with 
those  whose  portions  fell  in  west  Donegal.  Others  sublet 
their  lands  for  grazing,  and  lived  idly  in  Dublin  on  the 
difference  between  the  rents  they  paid  and  the  rents  they 
received — mere  middlemen,  in  fact.  Others,  though 
resident  on  their  lands,  failed  in  the  conditions  as  to  build- 
ing. Such  infringements  of  the  rules  tended  to  defeat 
the  main  objects  of  the  Plantation,  and  the  penalty  of 
forfeiture  was  therefore  rigorously  applied  in  every  case 
where  the  grantee's  shortcomings  were  detected.  From 
causes  such  as  these  changes  in  the  surface  ownership 
were  ceaselessly  at  work.  As  a  guide,  then,  to  the  actual 
settlement  of  the  province,  a  detailed  recital  of  the  first 
Plantation  grants  has  little  value.  A  further  upheaval  of 
the  earlier  colonial  arrangements,  as  recorded  by  Pynnar, 
was  caused  by  the  great  rebellion  of  1641,  which  was 
followed  by  Petty's  Survey  and  the  Cromwellian  Settlement, 
by  which  conditions  were  still  further  complicated.  Never- 
theless, a  short  consideration  of  the  Plantation  of  1610 
is  necessary  for  a  proper  understanding  of  the  situation 
which  was  then,  for  the  first  time,  created,  as  between  the 
original  native  Celtic  Irish  and  the  Anglo-Saxon  immigrants. 
As  the  result  of  Ridge  way  and  Bodley's  Survey  in  1608 
and  1609,  the  six  escheated  counties  were  divided  up  into 
lots  of  1,000,  1,500  and  2,000  acres,  which  were  known  as 
"  smaller,  middle  and  larger  proportions."  These  "  pro- 
portions "  were  assigned  to  the  various  British  Undertakers 
by  lot,  others  were  assigned  by  selection  to  the  Servitors 
and  the  native  Irish  chiefs.  We  learn  that,  as  the  result 
of  the  first  distribution,  assignments  were  made  to  123 
Undertakers,  41  Servitors  and  63  natives.1  "  Under- 
takers "  was  the  name  given  to  the  assignees  who  specially 
crossed  the  Channel  in  response  to  the  prospectus.  "  Ser- 
vitors "  were  those  who  had  served  Elizabeth  during  the 
Queen's  long-extended  war  with  Tyrone,  and  who — by 
virtue  of  their  services — were  accorded  certain  special 
privileges  with  regard  to  the  subletting  of  their  lands  to 
native  Irish,  which  were  denied  to  the  Undertakers. 
Their  rents,  however,  were  higher.  Under  the  terms  of 
the  original  prospectus,  the  Undertakers  paid  to  the 
Crown  a  rent  of  £5  6s.  8d.  for  each  1,000  acres,  the  Servitors 
paid  £8  6s.  8d.  per  1,000  acres,  and  the  natives  £10  3s.  4d., 

1  Col.  State  Papers,  James,  958. 


42  THE  ULSTER  PLANTATION  [CHAP,  iv 

the  higher  rent  in  their  case  being  justified  by  the  argument 
that  they  were  not  liable,  by  the  terms  of  their  agreement, 
to  the  capital  outlay  to  which  the  Undertakers  and  Servitors 
were  bound  under  the  penalty  of  forfeiture.  The  main 
item  of  expenditure,  to  which  each  Undertaker  and 
Servitor  was  bound,  was  the  building  of  a  strong  stone 
Castle  and  bawn  (i.e.  courtyard)  on  their  property  within 
two  years  from  the  date  of  allotment. 

The  proportions  applied  for  and  assigned  to  the  Under- 
takers and  Servitors  were — as  already  stated — in  lots  of 
1,000,  1,500,  and  2,000  acres.  These  figures,  however,  are 
of  very  little  value  indeed  as  a  guide  to  the  acreage  which 
actually  passed  into  the  hands  of  certain  of  the  Under- 
takers, as — by  the  curious  method  of  reckoning  employed 
by  the  surveyors — only  such  lands  as  they  considered 
"  profitable  "  were  included  in  the  acreage  returned.  In 
their  own  language  they  explain  their  methods  as  follows  : 
"  Where,  in  the  project,  a  county  is  said  to  contain  a 
determinate  number  of  acres  Tyrone,  e.g.  98,187,  it  must  not 
be  understood  that  the  county  of  Tyrone  has  no  more 
English  acres  in  it,  for  it  is  well  known  that  it  contains 
626,589  English  acres.  But  the  meaning  is  that  the  county 
contains  so  many  acres  of  escheated  "  profitable  "  land, 
exclusive  of  unforfeited  and  Church  lands,  also  bog, 
mountains,  lakes,  woods  and  other  unprofitable  scopes."  1 

It  is  obvious  that  a  method  of  survey  such  as  this  allowed 
the  surveyors  a  very  wide  and  rather  dangerous  discretion, 
for  an  allottee's  grant  might  be  extended  ad  infinitum  by 
the  simple  process  of  classifying  all  additional  lands  as 
"  unprofitable."  A  case  in  point  is  that  of  the  Londoners 
in  Coleraine.  These  representatives  of  the  City  Companies 
were  returned  as  having  acquired  37,000  acres  under  the 
Plantation  allotment.  Later  and  more  scrupulous  surveys 
brought  to  light  the  fact  that  their  actual  holding  amounted 
to  no  less  than  250,000  acres  of  excellent  land,  the  balance 
having  been  conveniently  classified  by  Ridgeway  and 
Bodley  as  "  unprofitable."  Out  of  these  disclosures 
arose  serious  trouble  between  Charles  I  and  the  City 
Companies,  the  King  claiming  from  the  latter  heavy  com- 
pensation on  the  grounds  that  his  father  had  been  defrauded 
by  false  returns. 

No    rent   was    demanded    from   the    Undertakers    and 
*  Walter  Harris's  Hibernica,  p.  121. 


1609]       RIDGEWAY  AND   BODLEY'S   SURVEY  43 

Servitors  for  the  first  two  years  of  occupation,  during  which 
it  was  reckoned  that  their  time  would  be  fully  engaged 
in  the  building  of  their  Castles.  The  native  allottees, 
being  under  no  such  compulsion  to  build  Castles,  began  the 
payment  of  rent  from  the  end  of  the  first  year. 

The  Undertakers  were  further  bound  by  the  terms  of 
their  contract  to  populate  their  lands  with  English  or 
inland  Scots  only,  and  these  were  to  be  brought  over  as 
entire  families,  so  as  to  minimise  the  risk  of  intermarriages 
with  the  natives,  which  were  rigidly  prohibited.  They 
were  in  no  case  to  sublet  for  a  shorter  period  than  twenty- 
one  years,  and  then  only  to  English  or  Scots.  In  the  case 
of  the  Servitors  this  last  condition  was  relaxed. 

Early  in  1609  Ridge  way  and  Bodley's  Survey  was 
sufficiently  advanced  to  justify  the  issue  of  a  prospectus. 
This  document,  of  which  unfortunately  no  copy  remains 
extant,  invited  the  attention  of  the  adventurous  to  the 
opportunities  offered  for  acquiring  land  in  Ulster  on 
attractively  easy  terms.  The  advantages  to  be  derived 
must  have  been  set  forth  with  considerable  skill,  for  the 
response  was  immediate.  Applicants  for  the  lands  offered 
came  forward  in  numbers.  Their  desirability  as  colonists 
was  duly  considered  on  the  English  side  of  the  Channel,  and 
their  applications — if  approved — were  forwarded  to  the 
commissioners  in  Ireland  to  be  dealt  with  according  to  the 
terms  of  the  prospectus.  The  commissioners  appointed 
to  carry  out  the  actual  work  of  allotment  were  Sir  John 
Davies,  Sir  Anthony  St.  Leger,  Sir  Henry  Docwra  (now 
returned  to  Ireland  as  Treasurer  at  Wars),  Sir  Oliver 
St.  John,  Sir  James  Fullerton  and  Mr.  Ley.  These  six 
started  from  Dublin  for  the  north  on  July  31,  1609.  The 
difficulties  and  complications  they  had  to  contend  with 
were  of  a  very  serious  nature,  and  over  a  year  elapsed 
before  their  dispositions  were  completed.  Then  the  doors 
of  invasion  were  thrown  open,  and  in  August  and  September 
1610  the  first  contingent  of  colonists  crossed  the  water 
with  their  families,  retainers  and  household  gods.  The 
great  Ulster  Plantation  had  commenced. 


CHAPTER  V 

CHICHESTER'S  POLICY 

THE  Survey  returned  by  Ridgeway  and  Bodley,  rough  and 
slipshod  though  it  might  be,  was  sufficiently  descriptive 
to  allow  of  the  original  allotments  being  made,  but  it 
did  nothing  towards  solving  or  modifying  the  "  native  " 
difficulty.  Chichester  made  certain  ineffectual  efforts  in 
this  direction  by  enlisting  some  of  the  worst  characters 
in  the  country — men  whom  he  describes  as  "an  unpro- 
fitable burden  of  the  earth,  cruel,  wild  malefactors  " — 
for  foreign  service.  In  the  autumn  of  1609  three  ships 
carrying  800  of  these  men  left  Derry  for  Sweden  under 
Colonel  Stewart,  later  on  to  be  better  known  as  Sir  Robert 
Stewart,  the  commander  of  the  famous  Lagan  Force. 
By  the  end  of  1614,  6,000  men  had  in  all  been  sent  across 
the  seas  to  swell  the  army  of  Gustavus  Adolphus.  They 
did  not,  however,  prove  a  success,  and  the  Swedish  King 
declined  to  accept  any  more.1 

With  regard  to  those  that  were  left,  the  only  possible 
course  that  remained  open  was  to  remove  them  from  the 
proportions  allotted  to  the  colonists  and  to  concentrate 
them  in  reservations.  These  reservations  were  necessarily 
on  the  lands  which  were  not  allotted  to  the  Undertakers, 
and  which  were  therefore  scheduled  as  unprofitable.  By 
the  condemnation  of  the  natives  to  these  unprofitable 
lands — mountain,  rock  and  bog — the  seeds  of  the  undying 
Ulster  question  were  sown.  For  centuries  to  come,  the 
descendants  of  the  transplanted  natives  were  doomed  to 
look  down  from  their  barren  holdings  on  to  the  fat 
lowlands  developing  unexpected  riches  under  the  industry 
of  aliens.  The  circumstances  surrounding  their  transfer 
soon  became  buried  in  oblivion,  and  the  true  facts  of  the 
case  were  replaced  by  legends  of  inflammatory  tendency. 
A  bitter  sense  of  wrong  smouldered  beneath  the  surface, 
needing  but  a  well-directed  breath  to  fan  it  into  flame. 

1  Bagwell's  Ireland  under  the  Stuarts. 
44 


1610]  THE  CUSTOM  OF   GAVELKIND  45 

And  yet  it  does  not  appear  that,  at  the  time  of  transfer, 
the  natives  were  conscious  of  any  sense  of  injury.  A 
careful  and  unprejudiced  reading  of  the  records  of  the  period 
tends  to  leave  the  impression  that  the  rank  and  file  among 
the  natives  of  Ulster  were  not  unfavourably  disposed 
towards  the  dislocation  of  pre-existing  conditions  which 
accompanied  the  Plantation.  They  found  indeed  many 
substantial  compensations  for  their  relegation  to  the 
wilds.  Not  the  least  of  these  was  that  the  Irish  peasants 
now  became  for  the  first  time  established  householders, 
with  a  knowledge  of  the  meaning  of  the  word  "  home." 

Under  the  old  Irish  custom  of  gavelkind,  land  did  not 
belong  to  the  individual,  but  to  the  tribe ;  which  meant 
in  actual  effect  that  everything  within  a  certain  area 
— crops,  cattle,  horses,  men,  women  and  children — was 
the  absolute  property  of  the  chieftain  who  ruled  over 
that  area.  If  a  chieftain  was  himself  an  urragh  (vassal) 
of  a  superior  chief,  he  was  bound  to  pay  such  and  such 
a  tribute  to  his  over-lord,  but  the  manner  of  his  collecting 
that  tribute  was  at  his  discretion.  Under  this  system  it 
was  an  unknown  and  indeed  an  uncontemplated  experience 
for  a  peasant  to  have  any  fixity  of  tenure,  or  indeed  any 
landed  rights  whatever.  He  could  be  moved  about  at 
will,  or — if  the  convenience  of  his  chief  was  better  suited 
thereby — he  could  be  extirpated  root  and  branch.  Even 
the  produce  of  his  labour  was  not  his  own,  but  his  chief's. 
To  this  disastrous  system,  and  its  paralysing  effect  on 
industry,  may  clearly  be  traced  the  distaste  for  agri- 
cultural labour  which  has  always  been  characteristic  of 
the  Celtic  Irish,  and  which  survives  to  this  day,  as  an 
illustration  of  the  ineradicable  nature  of  racial  character- 
istics which  are  the  outcome  of  forced  conditions  of  life. 
A  biologist  would  describe  them  as  the  outcome  of  environ- 
ment. 

In  substitution  for  the  old  custom  of  gavelkind,  the 
Plantation  scheme  introduced  fixity  of  tenure  for  the 
peasants,  in  return  for  the  payment  of  a  settled  rent  to 
their  chief,  or  their  landlord,  as  he  became  under  the  new 
system.  In  place  of  living  as  houseless  and  homeless 
nomads — mere  biped  cattle  driven  hither  and  thither  at 
the  will  of  the  chief — each  family  could  now  enjoy  its 
own  home,  to  the  undisturbed  possession  of  which  it  was 
legally  entitled  so  long  as  the  annual  rent  was  paid.  The 


46  CHICHESTER'S  POLICY  [CHAP,  v 

peasants  gained  the  further  advantage  of  being  exempted 
by  law  from  the  burden  of  having  soldiery  forcibly  quar- 
tered on  them,  which,  under  the  old  Irish  system,  had 
subjected  them  to  the  intolerable  oppression  arising  from 
the  customs  of  coyne,  livery  and  bonnaght,  whfch  in  effect 
licensed  the  Irish  gallowglasses  to  take  from  those  on 
whom  they  were  quartered  everything  they  possessed. 
Against  the  disadvantages,  then,  of  unprofitable  lands, 
there  were,  on  the  other  side  of  the  balance-sheet,  very 
marked  compensations.  If  we  can  believe  the  corre- 
spondence of  the  day — and  there  is  no  reason  for  doing 
otherwise — the  new  conditions  were  warmly  welcomed  by 
the  peasant  class.  "  The  freeing  of  the  Irish  from  their 
lords  has  been  a  great  step,"  Sir  William  Parsons  wrote 
to  Lord  Conway  in  1635  ;  "  they  now  stretch  their  limbs 
in  their  new  lands,  find  themselves  free,  and  proceed  to 
build  stone  houses,  make  enclosures  [of  land]  and  put 
their  children  to  school.  They  visit  the  exchequer  twice 
a  year,  and  pay  all  their  feudal  dues.  Where  before 
they  purchased  men,  now  they  purchase  lands.  They 
learn  English  law,  and  have  trodden  down  the  yoke  of 
the  Irish  lords,  under  which  they  suffered  for  nearly  300 
years."  *  Letters  such  as  these,  written  as  mere  communi- 
cations of  news  and  without  any  special  object  in  the 
background,  leave  an  impression  of  a  populace  not  only 
contented,  but  expanding  pleasurably  in  many  directions 
under  the  new  conditions  opened  to  them.  It  was  only 
when  an  unrestrained  prolificacy  caused  congestion  on 
the  unprofitable  lands  that  the  evils  of  the  arrangement 
began  to  stand  out,  and  that  the  natives  in  the  reservations 
began  to  chafe  against  the  confinement  of  their  boundaries. 
At  the  first  all  was  well  with  them. 

There  were  others,  however,  with  whom  all  was  very 
far  from  well.  The  chiefs  and  sub-chiefs,  from  the  very 
first,  viewed  the  new  dispensation  with  the  utmost  ab- 
horrence. Even  those  who,  on  account  of  past  services, 
were  legally  installed  hi  the  ownership  of  large  tracts  of 
land,  found  cause  for  grievance  in  their  restricted  powers 
of  exaction.  Such  men,  e.g.,  as  Tirlough  McHenry  of 
the  Fews,  who  had  been  used  to  take  everything  he  needed 
from  his  serfs,  now  found  himself — for  all  his  10,000 
acres — tied  down  to  a  fixed  and  limited  income.  The 

1  Cal.  State  Papers,  December  12,  1625. 


1612]      DISCONTENT  OF  THE  CHIEFS'   SONS  47 

idea  of  living  within  the  limits  of  a  fixed  income  was 
repellent  in  the  extreme  to  men  reared  on  very  contrary 
traditions.  From  the  moment  of  the  landing  of  the 
first  contingent  of  Undertakers,  they  set  to  work  cease- 
lessly, by  every  available  means,  to  bring  about  a  reversion 
to  the  old  order.  That  such  was  their  aim  was  only  too 
well  known  to  Chichester,  but  the  knowledge  had  no  effect 
upon  his  course  of  action.  Such  grants  as  were  made  to 
the  chiefs  were  made  as  acts  of  justice  rather  than  as 
acts  of  policy.  The  question  of  policy  in  such  matters 
was  not  worthy  of  consideration.  For  every  sub-chief 
that  Chichester  befriended  or  endowed  he  made  a  dozen 
enemies,  nor  was  it  by  any  means  an  assured  fact  that 
those  whom  he  befriended  would  be  moved  thereby  to 
any  sentiments  of  gratitude.  Chichester  cherished  no 
illusions  on  this  point.  "  The  Irish,"  he  wrote  to  the 
Privy  Council  in  1609,  "  are  all  filled  with  treachery  and 
malice  against  the  English,  which  can  neither  be  reclaimed 
with  time  nor  appeased  with  benefits." 1  Ominously 
prophetic  words,  for,  in  the  great  rebellion  of  1641, 
the  two  cruellest  and  most  prominent  figures  were  the 
descendants  respectively  of  Sir  Henry  Oge  and  Connor 
Roe  Maguire,  who  were  the  two  Ulster  chiefs  especially 
singled  out  by  the  Government  for  favour. 

If  the  favoured  Ulster  chiefs,  who  received  special  grants 
of  profitable  lands,  found  grievance  in  the  drawing  of 
their  teeth  and  the  clipping  of  their  talons,  what  is  to  be 
said  of  the  dispossessed  chiefs'  idle  sons,  legitimate  and 
illegitimate,  who  swarmed  everywhere  ?  Hangers-on 
and  sycophants  of  their  big  relations  in  the  old  days, 
acting  as  their  bravoes,  and  living  on  their  leavings,  these 
now  found  themselves  without  homes  or  occupation. 
Work  of  any  kind  was  abhorrent  to  them ;  a  settled  state 
of  society  offered  no  opening  for  their  peculiar  talents. 
Some  were  shipped  abroad  by  Chichester  for  Sweden, 
and  the  rest  became  brigands,  a  profession  which  called 
for  no  abrupt  change  from  their  former  mode  of  life. 
They  were  known  as  "  woodkerne,"  from  the  fact  that 
their  haunts  lay  in  the  impenetrable  jungles  of  Glenconkein, 
Killeteagh,  Kilwarlin  and  other  thickly  wooded  districts, 
out  of  which  they  would  sally  forth  at  night,  and  prey 
on  all  alike,  Irish  no  less  than  English.  It  is  these  brigand 

1  Chichester  to  Privy  Council,  May  4,  1608. 


48  CHICHESTER'S  POLICY  [CHAP,  v 

"  woodkerne  "  whom  Thomas  Blennerhasset  very  reason- 
ably bracketed  with  wolves  in  his  recommendations  as 
to  the  treatment  of  Ulster.  He  put  forward  certain  sug- 
gestions that  aimed  at  ridding  the  country  of  "  wolves 
and  woodkerne."  The  words  are  often  quoted  as  evidence 
of  the  callous  brutality  of  the  British  towards  the  natives. 
One  Anglo-Irish  writer,  in  his  desire  to  magnify  the  wrongs 
of  Ireland,  ingeniously  twists  Blennerhasset's  recom- 
mendation into  a  proposal  on  the  part  of  the  British  to 
hunt  the  Irish  with  wolf-hounds.1 

The  idle  scions  of  the  old  Irish  aristocracy,  even  when 
they  were  not  brigands,  were  systematic  disturbers  of 
the  country's  peace.  Discontented  themselves,  they  left 
no  stone  unturned  in  their  efforts  to  communicate  their 
discontent  to  the  peasantry.  In  this  design  they  could 
always  count  on  the  co-operation  of  the  priests,  who 
viewed  with  feelings  of  profound  gloom  the  installation 
in  their  midst  of  a  large  Protestant  population.  Both 
these  classes  worked  with  indefatigable  zeal  to  prevent 
the  country  from  settling  down  to  a  state  of  passive  and 
prosperous  contentment. 

It  does  not  appear  that  the  priests  had  at  the  moment  any 
real  justification  for  their  active  hatred  of  the  Protestants, 
except  in  regard  to  their  loss  of  the  Church  revenues. 
Apart  from  this  one  undying  grievance,  the  hand  of  the 
administration  lay  light  upon  them.  There  was  nothing, 
prior  to  the  1641  rebellion,  in  the  nature  of  religious 
persecution.  On  the  contrary,  it  would  appear  that 
Chichester — though  desirous  of  gradual  reforms — was 
averse  to  any  form  of  compulsion  which  might  be  inter- 
preted as  intolerance.  "  In  this  matter,"  he  wrote  in 
1606,  "  I  have  dealt  as  tenderly  as  I  might,  knowing 
well  that  men's  consciences  must  be  won  and  persuaded 
by  time,  conference  and  instruction,  which  the  aged 
here  will  hardly  admit ;  and  therefore  our  hope  must 
lie  in  the  education  of  the  youth  ;  and  yet  we  must  labour 
daily,  otherwise  all  will  turn  to  barbarity,  ignorance  and 
contempt.  I  am  not  violent  therein,  albeit  I  wish  reform- 
ation, and  will  study  and  endeavour  it  all  I  may,  which 
I  think  sorts  better  with  His  Majesty's  ends  than  to  deal 
with  violence  and  like  a  Puritan  in  this  kind." 

In  1607  Chichester  caused  the  Prayer-book  to  be  printed 
1  See  Preface  to  J.  T.  Gilbert's  Contemporary  History. 


1612]  PLOUGHING  BY  THE  TAIL  49 

in  Irish,  and  later  on  he  imposed  a  fine  of  one  shilling  per 
week  on  all  who  did  not  attend  church.  This  fine  was 
never  exacted,  but  it  afterwards  furnished  a  useful  weapon 
for  Strafford,  who  shook  it  in  the  faces  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  members  of  Parliament  when  they  showed 
signs  of  protesting  against  one  of  Charles  I's  exacting 
subsidies. 

Another  fine  which  was  far  more  productive,  and  which 
may  suitably  be  mentioned  here,  was  that  which  was 
imposed  on  the  Irish  custom  of  ploughing  by  the  tail. 
For  each  plough  so  used  Chichester  exacted  a  fine  of  ten 
shillings,  the  proceeds  of  which  were  used  to  swell  the 
fund  which  took  the  place  of  modern  county  rates,  and 
which  was  devoted  to  the  making  of  roads,  building  of 
bridges,  and  such  other  matters  as  were  for  the  public 
welfare.  Later  on  Strafford  entirely  vetoed  the  practice 
on  the  grounds  of  its  cruelty,  and  because — in  the  wording 
of  the  Act — "  besides  the  cruelty  used  to  the  beasts,  the 
breed  of  horses  is  thereby  much  impaired  in  this  country." 
The  horses,  or  rather  ponies,  were  simply  attached  to 
the  plough  by  their  tails.  The  result  was  that,  when 
any  stump  or  root  was  encountered  in  newly  turned 
ground,  the  tail  was  all  but  torn  out  by  the  roots.  Even 
after  the  passing  of  the  prohibition  Act,  the  greatest 
difficulty  was  experienced  in  prevailing  upon  the  natives 
to  change  their  manner  of  ploughing,  the  attractions  of 
which,  in  their  eyes,  lay  in  its  cheapness  and  the  small 
amount  of  trouble  which  it  involved.  It  was  still  in 
general  practice  in  1650. 


CHAPTER  VI 

PROGRESS  OF  THE  PLANTATION 

IT  now  becomes  necessary  to  review  briefly  the  actual 
application  of  the  Plantation  in  its  working  form  to  each 
of  the  six  counties  involved.  At  the  same  time  its  justi- 
fication in  each  particular  case  may  be  considered. 

Donegal,  the  county  farthest  removed  from  England, 
and  the  poorest  in  actual  resources,  was  perhaps,  of  all 
the  counties  involved,  the  one  most  incontestably  liable 
to  forfeiture.  Hugh  Roe  O'Donnell's  ten  years  of  rebellion, 
his  flight  to  Spain,  followed  by  the  treasonable  schemes 
and  guilty  flight  of  his  brother  Rory,  Earl  of  Tyrconnell, 
had  beyond  all  question  rendered  liable  to  confiscation 
all  the  feudal  rights  of  the  main  line  of  the  O'Donnells. 
O'Dogherty's  rebellion  and  death  had  opportunely  added 
Inishowen  to  the  lands  justly  escheated  to  the  Crown, 
and  Neil  Garv's  proved  complicity  finally  extinguished 
any  claims  that  treacherous  subjects  might  otherwise 
have  established  to  the  chiefry  of  Donegal.  The  temporary 
confinement  of  his  son  Nachten  was  a  precautionary 
measure  which  was  probably  justified  in  all  the  circum- 
stances. According  to  Meehan,  the  boy  was  speedily 
released,  but  he  disappears  permanently  from  history. 

Although  the  county  of  Donegal,  as  a  whole,  was  justly 
forfeit  to  the  Crown  by  reason  of  the  mutiny  of  its  principal 
territorial  lords,  certain  among  the  sub-chiefs  had  remained 
sufficiently  neutral  during  O'Dogherty's  rebellion  to  entitle 
them  to  some  recognition.  The  three  McSweeneys  and 
O'Boyle  were  each  allotted  one  large  proportion,  that  is 
to  say  2,000  acres  of  profitable  land.1  Ineenduv  was, 
at  the  same  time,  granted  1,000  acres  at  Mongavlin.8 
On  the  other  hand,  O'Gallagher,  who  had  openly  joined 
O'Dogherty,  was  shorn  of  all  his  rights  in  central  Donegal. 

It  is  probable  that  others  among  the  natives,  whose  names 

1  Gal.  State  Papers,  James,  1610,  703. 

2  Philadelphia  Papers,  vol.  iv.  p.  133. 

50 


1612]  DONEGAL  AND   TYRONE  51 

are  unrecorded,  were  considered  worthy  of  recognition 
under  the  scheme,  for  in  the  original  lists  we  find  that 
thirty-eight  proportions  were  allotted  to  Undertakers, 
nine  to  Servitors  and  fifteen  to  natives.  We  also  learn 
that  when  the  Undertakers  saw  the  lands  which  had 
fallen  to  their  lot  in  West  Donegal,  they,  for  the  most 
part,  declined  going  any  further  in  the  matter,  and  turned 
their  backs  on  the  country.  Sir  William  Stewart,  however, 
who  was  already  a  considerable  landowner  in  Co. 
Tyrone,  was  more  venturesome,  and  built  himself  a  Castle 
at  Kilmacrenan.  In  East  Donegal  Sir  Richard  Hansard 
rebuilt  Lifford,  which,  in  1610,  boasted  no  fewer  than 
fifty-eight  houses. 

The  county  of  Tyrone  had  always  been  the  very  home 
and  fountain-head  of  the  O'Neils.  The  entire  county 
had  been  legitimately  forfeited  on  account  of  the  Earl  of 
Tyrone's  rebellion  ;  it  had  been  restored  to  him  upon 
his  submission,  and  had  once  more  become  forfeit  upon 
the  disclosure  of  fresh  treacheries  which  had  followed 
upon  his  sudden  flight  from  the  country.  Here  again, 
however,  virtue  among  the  natives  was  fittingly  recognised. 
Of  these  the  most  conspicuous  was  Tirlough  McArt. 
This  grandson  of  Tirlough  Luineach  had  originally  been 
given  a  grant  of  Newtown  and  Strabane,  and  of  all  the 
lands  between  the  rivers  Derg  and  Finn,1  but  later  on 
Chichester  found  that  his  establishment  in  these  places 
interfered  with  the  general  scheme  of  Plantation,  and 
Tirlough  was  given  in  substitution  3,000  acres  of  profitable 
land  at  Dungannon.  His  brothers  Neil,  Con  and  Brian 
were  at  the  same  time  granted  500  acres  apiece  in  the 
same  locality.* 

Sir  Henry  Oge  had  originally  been  granted  2,000  acres 
(profitable)  at  Kinard  in  Tyrone,  and  3,000  acres  in  Oneilan 
in  Co.  Armagh,  on  the  other  side  of  the  Blackwater, 
but  the  Armagh  lands  were  subsequently  increased  to 
4,900  acres s  by  some  arrangement  (according  to  the 
Earl  of  Tyrone,  of  a  questionable  character)  which  gave 
Sir  Henry  part  of  the  neighbouring  barony  of  Turany.4 
The  death  of  Henry  Oge  was  quickly  followed  by  that  of 

1  Cal.  State  Papers,  James,  1608,  53,  and  1610,  703. 

*  Ibid.,  James,  1610,  733. 

3  Walter  Harris's  Hibernica. 

*  Earl  of  Tyrone's  Articles,  Cal.  State  Papers,  James,  602, 


52  PROGRESS  OF  THE  PLANTATION    [CHAP,  vi 

his  eldest  son  Tirlough,  who  left  an  infant  son  named 
Phelim,  who,  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  primogeniture, 
was  heir  to  the  whole  estate.  Chichester,  however,  very 
wisely  decided  that  it  was  undesirable  to  associate  so 
large  an  estate  with  so  long  a  minority,  and,  with  King 
James's  consent,  divided  up  the  property  among  the 
members  of  the  late  Sir  Henry's  family.1  When  Phelim 
arrived  at  years  of  understanding  he  found  much  fault 
with  this  arrangement,  and  petitioned  Charles  I  for  a 
renewed  title  to  all  the  lands  which  had  been  granted  to 
his  grandfather.  This  petition  was  unfortunately  granted, 
for  it  put  into  Phelim's  hands  a  power  which  he  at  once 
utilised  for  reactionary  purposes,  and  which  was  directly 
responsible  for  one  of  the  bloodiest  chapters  in  history. 
After  provision  had  been  made  for  the  above  grants, 
the  rest  of  Tyrone  was  divided  up  between  35  Undertakers, 
eleven  Servitors  and  eight  natives.1 

Before  Perrot's  county  division  scheme  took  effect, 
Co.  Armagh  had  been  a  part  of  Tyrone,  and  was  almost 
as  sacred  to  the  O'Neils  as  the  latter  county.  The  Crown's 
right  of  confiscation  was  therefore  as  clearly  established 
in  this  county  as  in  Tyrone.  No  county,  however,  fur- 
nishes clearer  proofs  that  the  main  aim  of  the  Plantation 
was  not  to  stamp  out  the  native  element,  but  to  bring 
about  the  downfall  of  the  feudal  system,  which  was  held 
to  be  responsible  for  all  the  country's  ills. 

Before  the  county  was  put  between  the  hands  of  the 
Plantation  Commissioners,  old  Art  McBaron,  who  had 
been  an  intermittent  rebel  for  thirty  years,  was  granted 
one  large  proportion  of  2,000  acres  in  Orior,*  and  Henry 
McShane  was  given  a  similar  grant  in  the  same  barony.4 
The  rest  of  Orior  was  settled  by  letters  patent  on  Sir 
Oghie  O'Hanlon  in  recognition  of  his  faithful  services  to 
the  late  Queen,  and  of  the  wound  in  the  foot  which  he  had 
received  in  the  Moyerie  Pass.  Tirlough  McHenry,  the 
Earl  of  Tyrone's  half-brother,  but  his  fairly  consistent 
opponent  throughout  the  long  rebellion,  received  a  special 
grant  of  9,900  acres  in  the  Fews,  in  respect  of  which  we 
learn  that  he  paid  the  King  £40  a  year  and  a  hawk.6 

1  Cal.  State  Papers,  James,  1612,  459.  z  Walter  Harris's  Hibernica. 

3  Cal.  State  Papers,  James,  925.  *    Ibid.,  James,  1610,  703. 

•JWalter  Harris's  Hibernica ;  see  also  Sir  John  Davies's  Historical 
Tracts, 


1612]  'FERMANAGH  58 

The  only  British  grantees  in  this  country  mentioned  by 
name  at  the  date  of  the  1610  Plantation  are  Sir  Toby  Caul- 
field  and  Sir  Francis  Roe.  The  first-named,  who  was  the 
principal  man  in  Ulster  at  the  time,  and  the  official  rent- 
collector  for  the  King  (an  office  which  we  are  told  he  carried 
out  with  very  exact  honesty),1  was  granted  Charlemont, 
and  the  last-named  Mountjoy ;  but  in  neither  case  are  we 
given  the  acreage  which  accompanied  these  two  strong- 
holds. However,  in  view  of  the  marked  discrepancy 
between  the  acreage  returned  in  the  Survey  and  that 
actually  allotted  (the  latter  always  exceeding  the  former) 
the  absence  of  figures  is  not  material.  After  the  above 
dispositions  had  been  made,  twenty-eight  proportions  were 
allotted  to  Undertakers,  six  to  Servitors,  and  eight  to 
natives. 

Fermanagh — though  included  among  the  six  escheated 
counties — was,  technically  speaking,  never  actually  con- 
fiscated for  Plantation  purposes.  According  to  the  exist- 
ing law,  the  county  had  been  legally  forfeit  to  the  Crown, 
for  Hugh  Maguire,  the  reigning  chief,  had  been  killed  in 
open  rebellion.  The  penalty,  however,  was  not  exacted. 
After  Tyrone's  submission  the  county  was  divided  between 
Connor  Roe  Maguire,  who  had  sided  with  the  Government 
throughout  his  half-brother's  rebellion,  and  Cuconnaught 
Maguire,  who  was  a  younger  brother  of  Hugh,  and  a  com- 
paratively unknown  quantity.  Cuconnaught,  however, 
joined  in  the  fresh  intrigues  of  Tyrone  and  Tyrconnell  and 
fled  the  country  with  the  two  Earls,  whereupon  Brian 
Maguire,  the  youngest  but  one  of  the  family,  was  tem- 
porarily put  in  possession  of  the  four  baronies  vacated  by 
Cuconnaught.  This  happened  in  1608,  and  therefore  prior 
to  the  Plantation.  When  the  Plantation  came  within  the 
range  of  practical  politics,  it  was  at  once  apparent  to 
Chichester  that  to  divide  an  entire  county  between  two 
natives — of  whom  one  had  so  far  done  nothing  worthy 
of  recognition — would  not  have  the  effect  of  forwarding 
the  objects  of  the  Plantation.  Brian's  grant  was  there- 
fore reduced  to  2,000  acres  (profitable)  in  Coole,  for  which 
he  paid  a  yearly  rent  of  £21  6s.  8d.,*  in  which  half-barony 
his  brother  Tirlough  was  also  granted  500  acres.  Connor 
Roe's  original  grant  had  included  the  baronies  of  Maghera- 

1  Cal.  State  Papers,  James,  1610,  546, 
a   Ulster  Journal  of  Archaeology. 


54  PROGRESS   OF  THE   PLANTATION     [CHAP,  vi 

Stephana,  Clankelly,  Tirkennedy  and  Knocknimy,  the 
last  two  being  reckoned  as  one  barony.1  Subsequently, 
however,  at  the  suggestion  of  Chichester,  Connor  Roe  gave 
up  all  except  the  barony  of  Magherastephana,  in  con- 
sideration of  which  concession  he  was  allowed  £200  a  year 
for  life,  and  £50  a  year  to  his  son  Brian  after  his  death. 
In  view  of  the  prominent  part  played  by  Brian's  son  Rory 
in  the  1641  rebellion,  this  distribution  has  a  peculiar  in- 
terest. 

In  addition  to  the  above-named  members  of  the  Maguire 
family,  Con  McShane,  the  second  of  Shane  O'Neil's  sons, 
and  a  man  who  had  all  his  life  been  landless  and  penni- 
less, was  allotted  1,500  acres  in  the  half-barony  of  Coole.8 
All  the  above-mentioned  grants  were  by  letters  patent, 
and  altogether  outside  of  the  Plantation  allotments.  The 
figures  returned  by  the  Plantation  Commissioners  are  re- 
markable. According  to  these  no  proportions  in  Fer- 
managh were  allotted  to  Undertakers,  four  only  to  Servi- 
tors, and  seven  to  natives.*  It  is  quite  evident  that  these 
figures  must  have  been  returned  prior  to  the  relinquish- 
ment  by  Connor  Roe  and  Brian  of  their  surplus  property, 
for  in  the  report  of  Captain  Alleyne,  who  worked  with 
Pynnar  in  his  1618  and  1619  Survey,  we  get  a  return  of  no 
less  than  twenty-three  Undertakers  in  Co.  Fermanagh, 
none  of  whom,  however,  were  to  be  found  in  the  baronies 
of  Magherastephana  or  Tirkennedy.4  We  are  told  that 
the  county  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century 
was  absolutely  the  poorest  in  Ireland,  owing  to  the  ex- 
treme exactions  of  the  Maguires.1 

This  brings  us  to  the  two  remaining  counties  of  Cavan 
and  Coleraine,  which  have  been  left  to  the  last  on  account 
of  the  doubts  which  must  always  exist  as  to  the  legitimacy 
of  their  confiscation.  In  Cavan  the  O'Reillys  had  always 
been  good  subjects  immeasurably  ahead  of  the  other 
Ulster  chiefs  in  civilisation  and  manners,  nor  could  it  be 
claimed  that  the  part  they  had  played  in  Tyrone's  rebel- 
lion had  at  any  time  been  so  pronounced  as  to  warrant 
their  inclusion  among  the  irreconcilables.  The  rather 
slender  argument  put  forward  by  the  Government  was 


1  See  Pynnar's  Survey.  4   Cal.  State  Papers,  James,  1618,  221. 

*  Carew  MSS.,  Ulster  Plantation.     •  Chichester  to  Lords,  September  12, 
3  Walter  Harris's  Hibernica.  1600. 


1612]  CAVAN  55 

that  Edmund  O'Reilly  had  assumed  the  chiefry  of  the 
county  contrary  to  the  wishes  of  the  Government,  and 
hao!  rendered  his  county  liable  to  forfeiture  by  being  killed 
in  actual  rebellion.1  "  By  a  verdict  returned  by  a  very 
sufficient  jury,"  Chichester  explained,  "  it  was  found  that 
all  the  lands  of  that  county,  either  by  actual  rebellion  or 
other  treacherous  practices  or  combinations  of  the  natives 
of  that  county  with  the  Earl  of  Tyrone  in  these  late  broils, 
are  escheated  to  His  Majesty  and  remain  at  his  free  dis- 
posal." It  is  obvious  that,  in  this  instance,  the  case  for 
the  Crown  will  not  bear  very  close  examination  ;  for,  in 
default  of  any  proof  of  crime  against  the  reigning  chief, 
the  rebellious  practices  of  the  rural  population  are  made 
the  excuse  for  confiscation,  which  was  in  direct  violation 
of  the  Government's  own  law.  All  that  Chichester  aimed 
at,  however,  in  pushing  through  the  doubtful  verdict  re- 
turned by  his  "  sufficient  jury,"  was  a  technical  confisca- 
tion with  a  view  to  the  more  equitable  distribution  of  the 
county  among  the  many  representatives  of  the  O'Reilly 
family.  It  appeared  that  Sir  John  O'Reilly  had  got  four 
out  of  the  seven  baronies  in  the  county  into  his  own  hands, 
to  the  great  discontent  of  the  other  O'Reillys.  The  chief 
complainant  in  this  respect  was  young  Mulmore  O'Reilly, 
whose  father  had  been  killed  at  the  battle  of  Yellowford, 
after  having  been  nominated  chief  of  Cavan  by  Sir  William 
Russell,  the  Deputy.  This  young  man  was  the  chief 
gainer  under  Chichester's  redistribution  of  the  county, 
for,  according  to  the  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  he  was 
allotted  the  whole  barony  of  Cavan.*  In  Pynnar's  Sur- 
vey, however,  he  is  returned  as  owning  3,000  acres  only.1 
The  two  statements  are  not  as  incompatible  as  might  at 
first  appear,  for  all  the  rest  of  the  barony  may  well  have 
been  returned  by  Ridgeway  and  Bodley  as  unprofitable. 
The  rest  of  the  county  we  find  divided  up  between  a  mul- 
titude of  O'Reillys,  McCabes,  Magaurans  and  McEchies. 
The  natives  were  not  transplanted  in  Cavan  as  in  the  other 
five  escheated  counties,  except  from  the  neighbourhood  of 
Belturbet,  where  a  considerable  settlement  of  the  new 
British  colonists  was  formed.  In  the  other  parts  of  the 
county  Chichester's  design  was  to  attempt  the  experi- 

1  Cal.  State  Papers,  James,  1606,  820  and  823. 

a  Ibid.,  James,  1608,  97. 

»  See  Lodge's  Desiderata  Curiosa. 


56  PROGRESS  OF  THE  PLANTATION    [CHAP,  vi 

mcnt  of  reforming  the  natives  by  the  force  of  example,  and 
by  contact  with  a  higher  civilisation.  This  intention  is 
made  very  clear  by  his  letters.  "  If  His  Majesty,"  he 
writes,  "  be  pleased  to  send  a  warrant  for  the  distribution 
of  the  lands  of  the  Brenny  (Cavan)  among  the  natives 
thereof,  with  reservations  of  some  proportions  of  land  in 
every  barony  to  be  bestowed  upon  some  Servitors  in  re- 
compense for  their  services,  they  conceived  hope  to  bring 
the  Brenny  in  a  short  time  to  the  condition  of  an  English 
county,  which  so  far  had  been  little  better  than  a  den  of 
thieves."  His  intentions  in  this  direction  are  made  even 
more  clear  in  his  comments  on  the  report  of  the  commis- 
sioners. "  In  Cavan,  Monaghan  and  Fermanagh  they 
found  the  people  very  poor  and  unacquainted  with  the 
laws  of  good  government,  having  been  long  subject  to 
oppression  and  tyranny,  as  they  shall  ever  be  unless  some 
men  of  more  civility  [i.e.  civilisation]  and  understanding 
be  seated  among  them,  both  to  instruct  and  defend  them  ; 
for  it  is  death  to  the  great  lords  that  their  followers  should 
understand  more  than  brute  beasts." 

The  lightness  of  the  original  Plantation  in  this  county 
is  borne  out  by  the  figures.  Out  of  twenty-six  proportions 
available,  six  were  allotted  to  Undertakers,  six  to  Servi- 
tors, and  fourteen  to  natives.  In  1618,  however,  we  find 
that  the  number  of  Undertakers  had  risen  to  fourteen, 
who  absorbed  24,500  acres,1  so  that  some  readjustment 
of  the  original  allotments  must  have  occurred  between 
these  dates. 

The  county  of  Coleraine  has  been  left  to  the  last,  be- 
cause the  case  for  the  forfeiture  of  this  county  was  un- 
questionably the  weakest  in  the  Government  portfolio. 
The  case  for  the  forfeiture  of  Cavan  was  weak,  but  the 
forfeiture  in  that  case  was  merely  technical,  and  no  hard- 
ship resulted  to  any.  In  Coleraine  it  was  a  very  different 
matter.  The  best  lands,  in  this  case,  were  actually  and 
literally  confiscated,  and  heavily  planted  with  British 
colonists,  while  the  O'Cahans,  O'Gormleys,  O'Mullans, 
McCloskies  and  McGillinghams  were  concentrated  about 
the  foothills  of  the  Sperrin  Mountains,  or  other  equally 
uncongenial  and  unprofitable  districts.  For  such  an 
arrangement  to  be  permanent  and  undisturbed  by  cease- 
less counterplots,  the  removal  of  Sir  Donnell  O'Cahan  was 

1  Col.  State  Papers,  James,  1618,  p.  221. 


1612]  COLERAINE  57 

all  but  essential.  Such  being  the  case,  doubts  naturally 
arise  as  to  whether  his  complicity  in  O'Dogherty's  rebel- 
lion had  really  been  such  as  to  justify  his  imprison- 
ment for  life  and  the  wholesale  confiscation  of  his  lands. 
O'Cahan's  record,  as  handed  down  to  us,  is  not  distin- 
guished by  any  heinous  crimes.  Chichester,  after  de- 
scribing him  in  the  first  instance  in  more  or  less  flattering 
terms  as  a  man  of  his  word,  later  on  changes  his  tone  and 
becomes  far  less  eulogistic.  One  cannot  but  wonder 
whether  the  exigencies  of  the  Plantation  may  not  have 
been  responsible  for  the  change  in  his  views.  "  Sir 
Donnell,"  he  wrote,  "  is  a  barbarous,  unworthy  man, 
and  not  to  be  dealt  with  but  by  the  strong  hand."  1  Sir 
Oliver  St.  John,  writing  a  fortnight  later,  is  but  little 
more  flattering.  "  Sir  Cahir  O'Dogherty  and  Sir  Donnell 
O'Cahan,"  he  says,  "  are  men  that  have  pride  enough  to 
think  themselves  worthy  of  much  more  than  the  King 
has  reason  to  do  for  them  ;  and  yet  no  liberality  will  make 
them  better."  *  Charges  such  as  these,  however,  by  no 
means  constitute  a  criminal  indictment,  and,  on  O'Cahan's 
side,  it  must  be  urged  that  he  had  at  one  time  been  scurvily 
treated  by  Mount  joy.  The  circumstances — briefly  stated 
— were  these.  Sir  Donnell  had  originally  been  of  Tyrone's 
party.  He  had  then  changed  sides  and  joined  Docwra 
against  his  father-in-law.  In  return  for  these  services  to 
the  Government  he  had  been  knighted,  and  had  been 
guaranteed  by  Docwra  independence  in  the  future  from 
the  over-lordship  of  Tyrone.  This  promise  had  at  the 
time  been  endorsed  by  Mountjoy  in  writing.1  The  latter, 
however,  subsequently  went  back  on  his  word,  and — after 
Tyrone's  submission — he  re-established  the  late  rebel  in 
the  over-lordship  of  Coleraine.  O'Cahan's  resentment  at 
this  breach  of  faith  was  only  equalled  by  Docwra's  indig- 
nation at  the  inexplicable  repudiation  of  an  act  of  justice 
which  he  himself  had  solemnly  guaranteed.  So  deep  was 
his  disgust  that  he  actually  resigned  his  Governorship  of 
Deny.  O'Cahan's  renewed  vassalage  to  Tyrone,  as  it 
turned  out,  was  not  of  long  duration,  for  the  Earl  fled  the 
country,  and  O'Cahan  became  once  more  independent, 
and  consequently  in  better  circumstances  than  his  an- 

1  Chichester  to  Privy  Council,  November  28,  1607. 

2  Sir  Oliver  St.  John  to  Salisbury,  December  11,  1607. 

3  Bagwell's  Ireland  under  the  Stuarts, 


58  PROGRESS  OF  THE   PLANTATION     [CHAP,  vi 

cestors  in  the  past.  He  had,  therefore,  no  possible  grounds 
at  the  time  of  O'Dogherty's  rebellion  for  identifying  him- 
self with  a  movement  the  avowed  subject  of  which  was 
once  more  to  bring  Tyrone  back  and  to  re-establish 
Tyronian  usages.  However,  it  unfortunately  fell  out  that, 
concurrently  with  the  disappearance  of  the  old  grievance, 
a  new  one  was  created  by  the  rapacity  of  Montgomery, 
Bishop  of  Derry.  The  validity  of  this  grievance  is  frankly 
admitted  by  Chichester.  "  Assuredly,"  he  wrote  to 
Salisbury,  "  O'Cahan's  first  discontent  grew  from  the 
Bishop  demanding  great  quantities  of  land  within  the 
county,  which  he  [O'Cahan]  maintains  never  yielded  but 
a  chiefry  to  that  see."  l  The  fate  of  Sir  Donnell  O'Cahan 
himself  has  already  been  dealt  with.  Rightly  or  wrongly, 
he  was  convicted  of  complicity  in  O'Dogherty's  rebellion, 
and,  as  a  consequence,  finished  his  days  in  the  Tower,  his 
lands  being  divided  up  among  the  London  City  Companies. 
The  most  important  individual  grantee  in  the  county, 
apart  from  the  Londoners,  was  Sir  Thomas  Phillips,  who, 
by  virtue  of  his  past  services,  was  assigned  3,000  acres 
around  Limavady,  where  he  built  a  village  of  18  houses,1 
and  500  acres  at  Castle  Toome.1  Sir  Thomas  Staples  had 
a  grant  at  Moneymore,  where  he  built  a  strong  and  hand- 
some Castle  and  a  model  village,  with  a  paved  street  and 
a  fresh-water  conduit  running  down  each  side  of  the 
street.  These  two  grantees  were  Servitors.  The  only 
Undertakers  named  in  the  commissioners'  returns  are  the 
City  Companies,  of  whom  there  were  twelve.  These 
practically  absorbed  the  whole  county.  On  July  1,  1609, 
the  Lord  Mayor  of  London  was  first  given  the  option  of 
leasing  the  county  of  Coleraine  and  the  city  of  Derry  for 
a  term  of  years.  The  Lord  Mayor  referred  the  matter 
to  the  City  Companies,  each  of  whom  deputed  four  of  its 
members  to  serve  on  a  committee  to  discuss  the  project. 
Opinion  on  the  committee  was  much  divided,  and  at  first 
the  opponents  of  the  scheme  were  in  a  majority.  Even- 
tually, however,  after  some  months  of  debate  and  hesita- 
tion, the  scheme  found  favour,  and  the  terms  of  the 
agreement  were  signed  and  sealed.  By  the  terms  of  this 
agreement,  the  City  Companies  bound  themselves  to 
spend  £20,000  on  their  new  possessions,  and,  in  addition, 

1  Chichester  to  Salisbury,  February  17,  1608.          2  Pynnar's  Survey. 
3  Philadelphia  Papers,  vol.  iv.  p.  117. 


1612]  COLERAINE  59 

to  build  200  houses  at  Derry  and  100  at  Coleraine  within 
two  years.  Glenconkein  and  Loughinshollin  were  to  be 
niched  from  Co.  Tyrone,  3,000  acres  from  Antrim  for 
the  Liberties  of  Coleraine,  and  4,000  from  Donegal  for  the 
Liberties  of  Derry.  In  addition,  to  the  city  of  Derry 
and  the  county  of  Coleraine — henceforth  to  be  known  as 
Co.  Londonderry — the  terms  of  the  lease  ceded  the 
fishing  rights  on  the  Foyle  and  Bann  to  the  London 
Companies.  The  fishing  on  Lough  Neagh  was  already 
Chichester's,  but  he  agreed  to  lease  it  to  the  Londoners 
for  £100  a  year.1 

The  stipulated  100  houses  in  Coleraine  were  built  in 
the  time  specified  and  surrounded  by  a  mud  rampart,  but 
the  same  cannot  be  said  of  the  200  houses  which  the 
Companies  had  undertaken  to  build  in  Derry.  In  1622 
we  find  that  the  city  contained  no  more  than  121  families  ; 
it  was,  however,  "  surrounded  by  a  good  wall,  the  circuit 
whereof  is  284  perches,  and  is  24  feet  high  and  6  feet 
thick."  « 

The  process  of  colonisation  in  Co.  Londonderry  was  not 
allowed  to  develop  without  one  positive  protest.  Rory 
O'Cahan,  the  son  of  the  unfortunate  Sir  Donnell — doubtless 
chafing  under  a  sense  of  family  wrongs — made  a  frantic 
but  futile  attempt  to  reverse  the  newly  established  order 
of  things  by  an  ill-prepared  and  feebly  supported  rebellion. 
In  this  enterprise  he  was  joined  by  Brian  Crossach  O'Neil, 
the  son  of  old  Cormac  McBaron.  Brian's  property  lay  at 
Augher  in  South  Tyrone,  and  it  does  not  appear  that  he 
had  any  direct  interest  in  the  salvage  of  the  O'Cahan's 
country.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  common  bond 
of  union  between  the  two  lay  in  the  fact  that  both  their 
fathers  were  at  the  time  in  the  Tower.  Apart  from  this 
common  feature,  there  is  no  real  analogy  between  the  two 
cases.  Sir  Donnell  O'Cahan — as  far  as  can  be  judged  from 
the  scanty  evidence  available — was  a  hardly  used  man, 
and  his  imprisonment  must  always  stand  out  as  the  one 
assailable  spot  in  a  scheme  of  social  and  industrial  reform 
which  was  otherwise  carried  out  with  a  decent  observance 
of  just  dealing. 

Cormac  McBaron's  case  was  widely  different.  This 
brother  of  Tyrone  had,  from  his  earliest  days,  been  a  tur- 

1  Gal.  State  Papers,  James,  1622. 

•  Str afford  to  Secretary  Coke,  August  11,  1638. 


60  PROGRESS   OF  THE   PLANTATION      [CHAP.  VI 

bulent  rebel,  with  many  a  deed  of  blood  and  treachery  to 
his  account.  Captain  Lee,  who  had  a  genuine  admiration 
for  Tyrone,  had  nothing  but  contempt  for  the  brother, 
whom  he  described  as  "  a  man  fit  only  for  the  gallows." 
Nevertheless,  in  spite  of  his  evil  records,  he  was  freely  par- 
doned by  James  on  the  submission  of  Tyrone,  and,  by 
order  of  the  King,  was  restored  to  all  his  lands.  Four  years 
later,  however,  for  his  complicity  in  the  plot  the  premature 
discovery  of  which  caused  Tyrone  and  Tyrconnell  to  fly 
the  country,  he  was  arrested  and  lodged  in  the  Tower.1 
Even  then  his  Castle  at  Augher  was  left  hi  the  possession 
of  his  son  Crossach,  and  his  wife  was  granted  a  pension 
of  £100  a  year.  Brian  Crossach  had,  therefore,  little  cause 
for  grievance  outside  of  the  fact  that  his  reprehensible  old 
father  was  in  the  Tower.  On  the  strength  of  this  supposed 
family  wrong  he  joined  himself  to  Rory  O'Cahan  in  1615 
in  a  conspiracy  which  aimed  at  massacring  all  the  new 
settlers,  and  so  regaining  possession  of  the  old  lands.  The 
conspiracy  was  betrayed,  the  ringleaders  arrested,  and  Rory 
and  Brian,  together  with  three  or  four  others,  were  executed. 
These  executions,  and  the  additional  confiscations  which 
followed  on  them,  contributed  in  some  small  degree  to  the 
simplification  of  the  problem  of  plantation.  By  the  time 
the  Ulster  Plantation  had  celebrated  its  sixteenth  anni- 
versary it  was  pronounced  a  definite  success.  Its  progress 
is  faithfully  pictured  in  Pynnar's  Survey,  which  neither 
glosses  over  shortcomings  nor  exaggerates  the  importance 
of  work  done.  This  Survey  was  ordered  to  be  made  for 
the  information  of  the  King,  who  was  anxious  for  a  faithful 
and  accurate  report  as  to  the  way  in  which  the  various 
allottees  were  fulfilling  the  terms  of  their  engagement.  In 
1618  Captain  Nicholas  Pynnar,  assisted  by  Captain  Alleyne, 
took  up  the  work  and  carried  it  through  with  a  patience 
and  thoroughness  which,  for  those  days,  was  remarkable. 
It  is  through  this  Survey  that  we  first  get  the  metamor- 
phosed Province  in  true  perspective.  We  are  shown  a 
land  the  surface  of  which  is  being  transfigured  as  though 
by  magic — stone  houses  built,  streets  paved,  windmills 
here,  watermills  there,  bogs  drained  and  waste  places  re- 
claimed and  cultivated.  Many  of  the  Undertakers,  the 
report  says,  had  brought  over  as  many  as  thirty  British 
families,  who  were  all  now  comfortably  housed  and  labour- 
1  Col.  State  Papers,  James,  1613,  732. 


1620]          THE  CASE  OF  THE  BROWNLOWS  61 

ing  to  make  the  land  profitable.  The  Scotch  settlers,  we 
are  told,  were  more  industrious  with  the  plough  than  the 
English. 

A  typical  and  instructive  case  is  that  of  Mr.  William 
Brownlow.  This  Undertaker  and  his  son  John  had  respec- 
tively 1,000  and  1,500  acres  at  Dowcoran  and  Ballynemony 
in  Co.  Armagh.  In  evident  determination  to  lose  no 
time  in  building,  they  had  brought  over  from  England  six 
carpenters,  one  mason,  six  labourers,  one  tailor,  one  free- 
holder and  six  tenants.1  The  staff  was  clearly  well  selected, 
and  carried  out  its  work  with  remarkable  efficiency.  Eight 
years  only  had  elapsed  since  the  arrival  of  the  Brownlows 
when  Pynnar  made  his  Survey.  "  William  Brownlow,"  he 
reported,  "  hath  in  all  2,500  acres.  At  Ballynemony  there 
is  a  strong  stone  house  with  a  good  island,  and  at  Dowcoran 
a  very  fair  house  of  stone  and  brick.  He  hath  made  a 
very  fair  town  of  forty-two  houses,  all  of  which  are  in- 
habited with  English  families,  and  the  streets  all  paved 
clean  throughout,  also  two  watermills  and  a  windmill  for 
corn."  In  all  Pynnar  found  fifty-seven  families  on  the 
property,  of  whom  not  one  was  Irish. 

The  case  of  the  Brownlows  is  typical  only  of  the  best 
and  most  enthusiastic  class  of  Undertaker.  In  many  cases 
Pynnar  found  that  no  Castle  or  cottages  had  been  built, 
and  that  the  property  had  simply  been  relet  for  grazing. 
In  such  cases,  immediate  forfeiture  followed  on  the  report, 
and  the  neglected  lands  were  re-allotted  to  new  and  more 
conscientious  Undertakers.  We  are  told  that  the  influx  of 
fresh  colonists  that  followed  on  the  receipt  of  Pynnar's 
Survey  and  report  continued  up  till  1622. 

1  Pynnar's  Survey,  Carew  MSS. 


CHAPTER  VII 

GROWTH   OF   THE    RACIAL   PROBLEM 

THE  success  of  the  great  Ulster  Plantation  was  commemo- 
rated by  the  ennoblement  of  the  principal  men  associated 
with  the  movement.  In  1613  Sir  Arthur  Chichester  was 
created  Lord  Chichester,  and  shortly  afterwards  Sir  Toby 
Caulfield  became  Lord  Caulfield  of  Charlemont ;  Sir  Foulke 
Conway  was  created  Lord  Conway  and  Killultagh,  and  Sir 
James  Hamilton  became  Lord  Clandeboye.  Sir  Randal 
McDonnell  was  created  Viscount  Dunluce  in  1618,  and 
afterwards  Earl  of  Antrim.  Hugh  Magennis  became  Lord 
Iveagh,  and  Sir  Thomas  Cromwell  Lord  Lecale. 

The  Ulster  Plantation  had  now  become  an  accomplished 
fact.  The  apparently  impossible  had  been  achieved,  and 
the  Province  thickly  colonised  with  British  families  of  the 
right  stamp.  The  picture  drawn  by  Pynnar  in  his  Survey 
is,  on  the  whole,  a  pleasing  one.  It  tells  of  a  neglected 
country  gradually  putting  on  the  garb  of  civilisation  and 
prosperity  ;  and  yet,  in  the  beauty  of  the  picture,  there 
was  one  flaw,  small  in  itself  as  yet,  but  brimful  of  grim 
possibilities  for  the  future.  While  the  colonists  were  con- 
verting the  barren  plains  of  Ulster  into  corn-fields  and 
orchards,  the  native  Irish,  from  the  bleak,  unprofitable 
mountains  to  which  they  had  been  condemned  under  the 
scheme,  looked  down  on  the  industrious  toilers  below  with 
an  ever-growing  hatred  in  their  hearts.  The  neglected 
virgin  soil  grew  rich  under  the  vigorous  treatment  to  which 
it  was  subjected,  and,  to  the  natives,  these  newly  discovered 
riches  seemed  a  stolen  part  of  their  inheritance.  It  is  not 
to  be  supposed,  nor  does  the  evidence  suggest,  that  this 
feeling  arose  spontaneously,  or  that  it  was  the  immediate 
outcome  of  the  changed  conditions.  The  immediate  out- 
come would  appear  to  have  been  a  feeling  of  relief  at  the 
disappearance  of  the  old  oppressive  feudalism.  This  feeling 
was  but  short-lived;  there  were  too  many  interested  in 
its  suppression.  The  dispossessed  aristocracy  and  the  dis- 


1620]     INCREASE  OF  THE  NATIVE  POPULATION     68 

endowed  priests  were  ever  at  work  with  whispered  words 
of  sedition,  and,  as  the  congestion  of  the  reservations  began 
to  increase,  the  whispered  words  took  hold.  The  danger 
of  the  position  was  unfortunately  aggravated  by  the  un- 
accustomed peace  which  had  settled  on  the  country. 

For  centuries  past  a  race  of  a  reckless  prolificacy,  which 
was  deliberately  encouraged  by  the  clerics  as  a  means  to 
an  end,  had  been  kept  within  numerical  bounds  by  inter- 
tribal raids,  massacres,  burnings  and  artificially  produced 
famines.  Under  the  newly  established  order  of  society 
such  death-dealing  enterprises  were  no  longer  possible. 
O'Donnell  could  no  longer  raid  and  burn  and  kill  in  O'NeiPs 
country,  and  O'Neil  retaliate  in  like  fashion  on  O'Donnell. 
O'Neil  and  O'Donnell,  from  time  immemorial  the  prime 
disturbers  of  peace  in  Ulster,  were  no  more.  Peace  and 
security  reigned  where  in  old  days  butchery  and  pillage 
had  held  unchallenged  sway.  As  a  result  the  Celtic  natives 
— whose  custom  was  to  marry  before  they  had  done  grow- 
ing— increased  and  multiplied  with  such  astonishing  free- 
dom that  the  mountain  districts  to  which  they  had  been 
relegated  soon  became  incapable  of  sustaining  them. 
Holdings  were  divided  and  subdivided  again  and  again, 
till  in  the  end  they  assumed  the  patchwork  appearance  so 
familiar  to  the  eye  to-day.  Poverty  and  hunger  began  to 
make  themselves  felt  where,  in  the  first  days  of  the  Plan- 
tation, there  had  been  abundance  for  all.  While  the  natives 
grew  individually  poorer  as  their  numbers  increased,  so 
the  colonists  grew  richer  as  they  gradually  developed  the 
productiveness  of  the  lowlands.  Every  year  the  gap  be- 
tween the  possessed  and  the  dispossessed  grew  more  marked, 
and,  as  it  grew  more  marked,  jealousy  and  hatred  took 
root  in  the  breasts  of  the  old  population.  It  is  all  but 
inconceivable  that  a  man  such  as  Chichester  should  not 
have  foreseen  this  inevitable  complication  of  the  original 
problem.  Carew  foresaw  it  nearly  thirty  years  before  the 
tragedy  of  1641.  "  If  the  King  of  Spain  were  to  land 
10,000  men  in  Ireland,"  he  wrote  in  1612,  when  the  new 
colonists  had  become  firmly  established  on  their  lands, 
"  all  the  settlers  would  be  at  once  massacred,  which  is  not 
difficult  to  execute  in  a  moment,  by  reason  they  are  dis- 
persed, and  the  native  swords  will  be  in  their  throats 
in  every  part  of  the  realm,  like  the  Sicilian  Vespers." 
Chichester  made  no  such  ominous  prophecies,  but  it  can 

6 


64       GROWTH   OF  THE   RACIAL  PROBLEM  [CHAP,  viz 

hardly  be  doubted  that  he  did  foresee  the  possibility  of 
a  native  rising  and  massacre,  but  preferred  leaving  the 
deluge  to  be  stemmed  by  those  who  should  come  after. 

A  peculiar  and  unfortunate  feature  in  the  case  was  that, 
the  richer  the  country,  the  harder  was  the  case  of  the  local 
natives,  for  there  was  less  unprofitable  land  on  which  to 
accommodate  them.  In  the  poorer  districts,  such  as  West 
Donegal,  there  was  little  disturbance  of  the  old  inhabitants, 
for  the  Undertakers  refused  the  boggy  and  heathery  lands 
offered  them*  The  Boyles  and  the  McSweeneys  remained 
where  they  had  always  been,  nor — thanks  to  the  're- 
peated changes  in  the  ownership  of  Inishowen — were  the 
O'Doghertys  greatly  disturbed.  Across  the  water,  however, 
in  Co.  Londonderry,  it  was  far  otherwise.  Here  the  new 
colonists  monopolised  the  rich  lands,  while  the  ancient 
population — with  little  agricultural  skill  or  enterprise — was 
forced  for  a  subsistence  to  land  which  would  grudgingly 
respond  to  the  most  improved  methods.  So,  too,  in 
Co.  Tyrone.  Wherever  the  heathery  mountains  cropped 
up  from  the  rolling  plains,  there  would  be  found  the 
Devines,  O'Quinns,  O'Hagans,  Devlins  and  Donnellys, 
living  at  first  in  reasonable  sufficiency,  but  gradually  in- 
clining towards  poverty  as  their  numbers  became  a  burden 
too  great  for  the  soil  to  carry.  A  lamentable  feature  of 
the  case  was  that,  even  where  the  natives  were  given 
grants  of  the  rich  lowlands,  they  neglected  to  imitate  the 
agricultural  energy  of  the  colonists,  and  were  content  to 
live  in  the  old  hand-to-mouth  fashion,  without  making  the 
best  of  the  land.  Pynnar  reported  in  1618  that  Tirlough 
Me  Art  (Tirlough  Luineach's  grandson)  "  hath  4,000  acres 
at  Dungannon.  Upon  this  he  has  made  a  piece  of  a  bawn 
which  is  five  feet  high  and  has  been  so  a  long  time.  He  has 
made  no  estate  to  his  tenants,  and  all  do  plough  after 
the  Irish  fashion,"  i.e.  by  the  tail.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
Tirlough  McArt  had  only  3,000  acres  (profitable),  but  his 
three  brothers  each  had  500  acres  adjoining,  so  that  the 
family  totalled  4,500  acres. 

If  the  upper  classes  among  the  native  Irish  had  shown 
more  aptitude  for  absorbing  new  ideas  the  tendency  to 
push  them  off  the  richer  lands  would  have  been  less  justifi- 
able. The  habits  of  centuries,  however,  are  not  so  easily 
eradicated.  The  Irish  territorial  chiefs  passively  refused 
to  become  landowners  after  the  English  fashion,  i.e.  to 


1620]  DEATH   OF  CHICHESTER  65 

build  houses,  drain  fields,  plough  waste  lands,  erect  mills, 
etc.,  and  reap  the  fruits  of  their  labour  and  their  outlay  in 
the  enhanced  productiveness  of  the  land.  Even  after  the 
Plantation,  in  cases  where  they  were  allotted  profitable 
lands,  they  adhered  to  their  old  gavelkind  habits,  scorning 
industry  as  unworthy  of  their  dignity,  and  chafing  at  the 
fixed  boundaries  to  the  lands  over  which  they  were  allowed 
to  exercise  their  old  rights  of  taxation.  This  reactionary 
attitude  did  not  tend  to  encourage  the  free  creation  of 
native  Irish  landowners,  as  experience  proved  that,  where 
the  trial  was  made,  neither  they  nor  those  under  them 
contributed  in  any  way  to  that  betterment  of  the  country 
which  was  aimed  at.  The  tendency,  therefore,  to  relegate 
them  to  the  bogs  and  mountains,  where  reclamation  was 
impossible,  or  at  any  rate  beset  with  difficulties,  became 
more  and  more  widespread,  and  was  to  a  certain  extent 
justified  by  the  argument  that  good  lands  were  thrown 
away  on  those  who  neither  toiled  nor  spun. 

In  Co.  Armagh  there  was  less  disturbance  of  the  old 
landowners,  owing  to  the  number  of  grants  under  patents 
made  to  natives  in  that  county  by  Chichester  prior  to  the 
Plantation.  We  learn  that  there  were  fifty  native  grantees 
in  the  barony  of  Orior  alone.  These,  however,  were  pre- 
sumably of  humble  rank  ;  their  grants  were  small,  and 
must  not  be  confounded  with  the  "  proportions  "  of  profit- 
able land  which  were,  in  many  cases,  assigned  to  the 
native  aristocracy. 

In  1614-  Arthur,  Lord  Chichester,  was  replaced  in  the 
government  of  Ireland  by  Sir  Oliver  St.  John.  Chichester, 
at  the  time  he  retired,  had  been  the  royal  representative 
in  Ireland  for  eleven  years,  a  term  of  office  unapproached 
in  the  case  of  any  previous  Deputy.  On  his  retirement 
he  withdrew  for  a  time  to  his  property  in  Antrim,  and 
finally  died  in  London  on  February  19,  1624.  He  was 
buried  at  Carrickfergus. 

Arthur  Chichester  was  unquestionably  one  of  the  greatest 
men  that  Ireland  has  seen.  His  name  is  much  vilified  by 
native  Irish  writers,  and  in  point  of  unpopularity  he  comes 
but  a  very  short  distance  behind  Cromwell.  Like  Crom- 
well, too,  he  was  hated  more  for  his  good  qualities  than 
for  his  bad  ones.  He  unquestionably  had  many  points  in 
common  with  the  great  Commonwealth  leader.  He  was 
a  ruthless  foe  in  warfare,  and  a  strikingly  just  and  generous 


66      GROWTH  OF  THE  RACIAL  PROBLEM  [CHAP,  vii 

ruler  when  the  sword  was  once  sheathed.  He  was  rigidly 
honest,  and,  though  he  enormously  increased  the  King's 
revenues  from  Ireland,  he  made  no  attempt  to  divert  any 
of  the  increment  into  his  own  pocket.  He  had  a  grand 
contempt  for  the  petty  bribes  too  often  associated  with 
Ministers  of  meaner  parts;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  he 
grasped  eagerly  at  any  chance  which  offered  of  acquiring 
for  himself  large  tracts  of  land.  In  1609  he  obtained  a 
grant  of  Inishowen  and  of  the  fishing  on  Lough  Neagh. 
In  the  following  year,  under  the  Plantation  scheme,  he 
was  allotted  Dungannon  Castle  and  1,300  acres  round,  in 
his  capacity  as  a  Servitor,  and  in  1621  he  was  given  a  grant 
of  Belfast  town  and  precincts.1  It  can  hardly  be  said 
that  these  grants  were  out  of  proportion  to  the  length  of 
his  service  as  Deputy,  or  to  the  remarkable  results  achieved. 
That  these  results  were  remarkable,  even  his  bitterest 
enemies  must  admit.  In  the  case  of  the  Ulster  Plantation 
he  was  called  upon  to  deal  with  problems  of  extraordinary 
complexity,  and,  though  many  of  the  means  which  he  used 
are  open  to  criticism,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  ends 
achieved  were  of  lasting  benefit  to  the  country.  His 
methods  of  warfare,  from  the  strictly  humanitarian  point 
of  view,  were  repulsive,  and  though  the  effects  of  the 
famine  which  he  occasioned  have  been  enormously  ex- 
aggerated by  historians,  all  too  eager  to  generalise  from 
one  harrowing  incident  related  by  Fynes  Moryson,  there 
can  be  no  question  but  that  he  intended  the  effects  to  be 
far  more  general  than  actually  was  the  case.  Men,  how- 
ever, must  be  judged  by  the  standard  of  their  times.  The 
times  were  brutal.  The  methods  adopted  by  Chichester 
were  a  recognised  branch  of  warfare,  and  were  universally 
employed  all  over  Europe  ;  nor  can  it  be  claimed  that — 
even  in  the  twentieth  century — the  same  ends  are  not 
aimed  at  by  more  scientific,  but  none  the  less  brutal, 
means.  To  the  careful  student  of  Irish  national  literature 
it  soon  becomes  clear  that  the  historical  unpopularity  of 
Chichester  and  Cromwell  is  due  in  neither  case  to  the 
brutality  of  their  acts — which  constituted  no  new  depar- 
ture from  recognised  methods — but  because  they  stand 
out  as  the  two  men  on  whom  can  be  definitely  pinned  the 
crime  of  having  planted  in  the  midst  of  the  Irish  people  a 
permanent  garrison  of  another  race  and  another  religion. 

1  McSkimmin's  History  of  Carrickfergus. 


1638]  GROWTH  OF  THE  COLONISTS  67 

The  eighteen  years  which  elapsed  between  the  retirement 
of  Chichester  and  the  appointment  of  Thomas  Wentworth, 
better  known  as  Lord  Strafford,  were  uneventful  years 
in  Ulster.  Though  many  might  cavil  at  the  methods 
employed  in  establishing  the  Plantation,  none  could  deny 
that — as  its  result — the  province  advanced  in  prosperity 
with  giant  strides.  Pynnar  reported  in  1618  that  there 
were  1,974  British  families  in  the  six  escheated  counties, 
among  whom  were  6,215  adult  men.1  The  following  year 
he  estimated  8,000  adult  men  in  the  six  counties.8  Ten 
years  later  a  census  return  estimated  the  number  of  adult 
British  in  the  whole  of  Ulster  at  13,092.  Ten  years  later, 
again,  in  1638,  Strafford  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that  there 
were  100,000  Scots  in  Ulster,  but  in  this  case  the  estimate 
was  not  based  on  any  official  census,  and  was  probably  a 
deliberate  over-statement.  Still,  the  increase  in  the  colonial 
element  was  unquestionably  remarkable.  The  difficulties 
of  luring  English  and  Scotch  families  into  Ulster  had  mainly 
arisen  in  the  earlier  stages  of  the  Plantation.  As  soon  as 
the  first  importations  had  become  fairly  established  in 
apparent  security,  all  the  hesitancy  of  intending  immigrants 
was  overcome,  and  the  Scotch  Presbyterians  swarmed  over 
to  a  country  where  they  hoped  to  be  immune  from  the 
persecution  and  dangers  which,  at  the  time,  threatened 
their  religion  in  Scotland.  James  I  had — in  the  earliest 
days  of  the  Plantation — passed  a  law  against  the  inter- 
marriage of  British  settlers  with  the  natives,  and,  to 
minimise  the  danger  of  any  infringement  of  this  law,  the 
Undertakers  and  Servitors  were  bound  by  their  contracts 
to  import  and  provide  accommodation  for  entire  families 
of  British  for  labour  purposes  on  their  lands.  It  had  been 
proved  by  the  experience  of  nearly  four  centuries  that,  in 
cases  where  intermarriage  did  take  place,  the  British 
invariably  adopted  the  Irish  religion,  and  drifted  into 
the  gipsy  ways  of  life  peculiar  to  the  traditions  of  the 
country.  James  had  the  understanding  to  realise  that, 
unless  this  tendency  was  checked  with  an  iron  hand,  the 
entire  object  of  the  Ulster  Plantation  would  be  defeated. 
In  the  case  of  the  Scotch  Presbyterians  the  danger  did 
not  exist,  for  between  them  and  those  of  the  Roman 
Catholic  religion  there  was  an  unbridgeable  gulf.  In  the 

i  Pynnar's  Survey,  Carew  MSS. 

*  Gal.  State  Papers,  James,  1619,  921. 


68      GROWTH  OF  THE  RACIAL  PROBLEM  [CHAP,  vii 

case  of  the  English  Episcopalians,  the  danger  was  not  so 
unsubstantial,  but,  with  each  influx  of  fresh  British  families, 
it  became  more  and  more  remote,  as  opportunities  increased 
for  alliances  of  those  with  their  own  race  and  religion. 
Religion  soon  became  the  infallible  hall-mark  of  race,  for 
neither  the  Episcopalian  nor  the  Presbyterian  religion  long 
survived  a  cross  with  the  native  blood.  Under  the  necessity 
for  preserving  race  distinctions  the  ordinary  class  distinc- 
tions were,  in  many  cases,  waived.  The  daughter  of  Sir 
William  Cole  married  a  tanner,1  and  Sir  Francis  Hamilton's 
daughter  married  a  carpenter  * ;  nor  does  it  appear  that, 
at  the  time,  such  alliances  were  considered  as  being  in 
any  way  derogatory. 

1  Information  of  Sir  Frederic  Hamilton.          *  Clogy's  Life  of  Bedell. 


CHAPTER    VIII 

THE   FINANCES    OF   THE   STUARTS 

QUEEN  ELIZABETH  had  been  thrifty  almost  to  a  fault ; 
she  underpaid  her  officials,  and  lived  largely  on  the  hospi- 
tality of  her  nobles.  She  has  even  been  accused  of  being 
niggardly  and  mean,  and  it  is  certain  that  the  entertain- 
ments which  she  provided  were  not  on  the  same  scale  as 
those  of  her  father.  At  the  same  time  her  parsimony  was 
not  without  its  virtuous  side.  Under  the  Tudors,  the  funds 
of  the  Crown  Treasury  were  mainly  provided  by  Parlia- 
mentary subsidies,  supplemented  by  arbitrary  impositions 
and  many  petty  tricks  of  finance,  which  were  no  more 
creditable  than  they  were  dignified.  Lavish  expenditure 
on  the  pomp  and  pageantry  of  royalty  had  to  be  paid  for, 
in  the  end,  by  the  spectators,  for  taxation  was  regulated 
by  expenditure,  and  not  expenditure  by  taxation. 

The  gradual  expansion  of  a  partially  developed  kingdom 
cannot  fail  to  be  accompanied  by  a  corresponding  increase 
in  the  administration  expenses,  but  by  no  means  does  it 
follow  that  the  corresponding  increase  in  taxation  is  met 
with  equanimity.  Where  taxation  is  imposed  by  a  repre- 
sentative Government  the  country  yields  with  some  show 
of  cheerfulness  to  the  inevitable.  Where  it  is  imposed 
capriciously,  and  at  the  arbitrary  discretion  of  a  King  or 
Queen,  the  response  is  not  so  cordial.  In  spite  of  her 
economy,  Elizabeth's  annual  expenditure  had  gradually 
risen  till  the  recognised  channels  of  revenue  were  barely 
sufficient  to  meet  it.  Only  by  the  exercise  of  a  rigid 
economy  was  she  able  to  avoid  recourse  to  new  and  ques- 
tionable impositions.  With  the  accession  of  James  I  the 
studied  restraint  which  had  characterised  the  last  reign 
was  succeeded  by  a  sudden  and  disastrous  prodigality. 
Like  many  another  who  has  been  reared  among  penurious 
surroundings,  James  fell  a  victim  to  the  sudden  change  to 
affluence.  The  revenues  of  his  predecessor  seemed  to  him 
inexhaustible.  He  himself  had  few  expensive  tastes,  but 


70  THE  FINANCES  OF  THE  STUARTS    [CHAP.VIII 

he  delighted  in  pandering  to  the  follies  and  extravagances 
of  others.  Intellectual  and  sagacious  as  the  Scotch  King 
was  in  matters  of  statecraft,  he  was  a  mere  fool  in  the 
handling  of  his  own  affairs.  With  the  death  of  Cecil  in 
1612,  the  last  remaining  check  on  his  foolish  propensities 
was  removed.  Frivolous,  empty-headed  upstarts  took  the 
place  of  the  Lord  Treasurer.  The  inane  ostentation  of 
Somerset  was  only  eclipsed  by  that  of  Buckingham.  Before 
James  had  been  twelve  years  on  the  throne  the  Treasury 
debt  amounted  to  £700,000.  To  meet  the  yearly  deficit 
extraordinary  measures  were  resorted  to.  Obscure  royal 
prerogatives,  that  had  lain  dormant  for  many  reigns,  were 
brought  to  light  and  legalised  as  engines  of  extortion.  The 
new  impositions  were  met,  but  they  were  met  without 
enthusiasm.  They  were  succeeded  by  others  even  more 
ingenious  and  more  fantastical.  In  spite,  however,  of  all 
these  questionable  money-raising  devices,  the  Treasury 
debt  continued  to  grow,  and,  pari  passu  with  its  growth, 
grew  the  general  discontent.  It  was  claimed  that  the 
money  voted  was  wasted  and  misapplied  ;  that  the  King's 
advisers  were  incompetent,  and  in  some  cases  worse  than 
incompetent,  The  Palatinate  Army  alone  cost  £700,000 
a  year,  and  did  nothing.1  The  public  temper  found  ex- 
pression in  the  plain  speaking  of  its  parliamentary  repre- 
sentatives. The  King  retaliated  by  dissolving  Parliament 
and  imprisoning  the  loudest  speakers.  Parliament  offered 
to  collect  the  King's  revenues  in  the  shape  of  legalised 
subsidies  if  he  would  abandon  the  practice  of  his  irregular 
impositions.  James  scouted  the  offer  as  aiming  at  the  cur- 
tailment of  his  royal  prerogatives,  and,  with  a  view  to 
showing  his  independence  of  Parliament,  devised  some 
further  and  still  more  questionable  methods  of  extracting 
money  direct  from  his  subjects.  The  country  remained 
quiet  and  outwardly  loyal,  but  below  the  surface  were  the 
elements  of  revolution,  which  were  none  the  less  dangerous 
because  they  were  controlled  and  orderly.  Behind  the 
Puritan  movement  in  the  south,  and  the  kindred  Covenant- 
ing movement  in  the  north,  was  a  firm  resolve  that  the 
absolutism  of  monarchy  must  pass  away  for  ever.  This 
resolve  did  not  at  the  first  frame  itself  in  definite  words. 
It  was  partially  screened  behind  an  onslaught  on  the 
Bishops  and  their  religious  supremacy  ;  but  James  was 
1  Whitelocke,  Memorials,  p.  2. 


1625]  CHARLES   I'S  MONEY  TROUBLES  71 

too  shrewd  to  deceive  himself  as  to  the  ultimate  aim  of 
this  attack.  "  No  Bishops,  no  King,"  was  his  summing 
up  of  the  situation. 

In  1625  the  King  died,  and  Charles  succeeded  to  a  legacy 
of  debt  and  trouble.  James  had  died  owing,  among  other 
debts,  £120,000  to  the  City  of  London,  £150,000  on  account 
of  the  Palatinate  Army,  and  £40,000  for  his  wardrobe. 
His  son  did  not  improve  matters  by  spending  £42,000  on 
his  father's  funeral.1  From  the  very  first  he  gave  evidence 
of  a  determination  to  follow  rigidly  in  his  father's  footsteps. 
He  had  neither  the  intellect  nor  the  reasoning  capacity  of 
James,  but  excelled  him  in  obstinacy  and  egoism.  Nothing 
could  shake  his  belief  in  the  divine  right  of  kings  to  prescribe 
for  the  religious  needs  of  the  country,  or  in  the  correspond- 
ing obligation  which  lay  on  the  country  to  fill  the  royal 
exchequer  as  required.  The  money-raising  tricks  which  had 
made  his  father's  reign  so  odious  were  expanded  and  added 
to.  Peerages,  knighthoods,  judgeships,  and  offices  of  every 
kind  were  sold  broadcast,  in  many  cases  to  the  unworthy 
and  inefficient.  The  Parliament  viewed  the  prospect  ahead 
with  sullen  gloom.  It  complained  that,  whereas  in  Eliza- 
beth's reign  honours  were  bestowed  in  return  for  sterling 
merit  or  services  of  some  kind  rendered  to  the  country, 
under  the  Stuarts  they  were  sold  to  fools  and  mounte- 
banks. The  highest  and  most  responsible  positions  were 
in  the  hands  of  frivolous  adventurers  whose  only  recom- 
mendation lay  in  their  personal  attractions.  Charles's 
own  tastes  were  no  less  simple  than  those  of  his  father. 
In  morals  he  could  compare  favourably  with  most  monarchs, 
but,  like  James,  he  entrusted  the  control  of  the  State  to 
foolish  spendthrifts  lacking  both  mental  balance  and 
capacity.  "  False  informers  and  misguiders  of  good  kings," 
Sir  Edward  Coke  remarked  sententiously,  "  are  much  more 
perilous  than  if  princes  themselves  were  evil."  *  This  was 
an  aphorism  the  truth  of  which  the  country  was  fast 
learning  by  sad  experience.  The  root  of  the  whole  evil 
was  popularly  supposed  to  lie  in  the  appointment  of 
Buckingham.  This  attractive  profligate  took  command  of 
the  new  King  from  the  first.  His  futile  expeditions  to 
Rochelle,  coming  on  the  top  of  the  jejune  Spanish  and 
Austrian  campaigns,  increased  the  royal  embarrassments 

1  Charles  I,  speech  at  Oxford,  August  4,  1625. 
1  Rushworth,  vol.  i.  p.  496. 


72  THE  FINANCES   OF  THE   STUARTS   [CHAP,  vm 

and  did  nothing  to  increase  the  King's  popularity  with  the 
country.  When  Buckingham  fell  to  Felton's  dagger  a  sigh 
of  relief  went  up  from  high  and  low  alike.  Weston,  his 
successor,  did  his  best  to  restore  the  balance  of  things,  but 
the  State  corruption  was  too  widespread  and  too  deep- 
seated  for  his  powers.  In  1630  the  Treasury  debt  had 
reached  the  sum  of  £1,600,000.  Five  years  later  Weston 
died,  and,  from  that  time  on,  Laud's  was  the  hand  that 
controlled  the  King's  financial  policy.  The  influence  of 
the  Archbishop  proved  literally  fatal  to  Charles.  Day  by 
day  the  gap  widened  between  the  King  and  his  Puritan 
Parliament.  In  the  north  the  Covenanting  Scots,  in  an 
ecstatic  revivalist  mood,  came  out  in  open  revolt  against 
the  domination  of  the  Bishops.  On  March  1st,  1638,  the 
Covenant  was  signed  at  Edinburgh,  and  Charles  knew  that 
he  was  faced  with  war. 

The  sympathies  of  the  English  people  in  this  crisis  were 
largely  with  the  Scots.  Puritans  and  Presbyterians  were 
partners  in  the  struggle  of  a  newly  enlightened  people 
against  a  religious  and  administrative  tyranny.  Both 
Puritans  and  Presbyterians,  in  the  first  ardour  of  their 
revolt,  made  themselves  ridiculous,  and  justly  unpopular, 
by  an  affected  advertisement  of  sanctimony,  which  will 
for  ever  be  associated  with  their  movement.  The  creed 
of  the  earlier  enthusiasts  was  Mosaical  rather  than  Chris- 
tian, and,  as  such,  cruel  and  uncompromising  ;  but  its 
sincerity  made  it  formidable,  and  at  the  same  time  gave 
it  a  touch  of  sublimity.  In  1640  the  threatened  war  took 
definite  shape.  The  Scots,  under  Leslie,  marched  south 
and  made  themselves  masters  of  the  north  of  England  with 
hardly  a  blow  struck  to  check  their  progress.  At  Newburn- 
on-Tyne  Lord  Conway,  with  4,500  men,  made  an  effort  to 
bar  Leslie's  way,  but  he  was  ignominiously  defeated,  his 
troops  throwing  down  their  arms  and  making  little  attempt 
to  fight.1  The  Scots,  in  their  advance,  behaved  with  so 
marked  a  courtesy  and  moderation  as  to  make  it  clear  to 
all  men  that  they  were  in  arms  for  a  principle  and  not  for 
vulgar  conquest.  No  violence  was  offered  to  any,  no 
plunder  was  seized  or  personal  property  destroyed.  Charles, 
however,  had  to  admit  defeat.  In  the  spring  of  1641  he 
went  to  Scotland,  voluntarily  yielded  to  every  demand  of 
the  Assembly,  attended  Presbyterian  worship,  and  showered 

1  Rushworth,  vol.  ii.  p.  1234. 


1638]  CHARLES  AND   ULSTER  78 

honours  on  Argyle,  the  Covenanting  leader.  Even  at  the 
very  moment  when  he  was  so  engaged  the  King  was 
secretly  intriguing  with  the  Earl  of  Antrim  to  bring  over 
an  army  from  Ireland,  which,  in  co-operation  with  Montrose 
and  the  Scottish  Highlanders  of  the  west,  were  to  fall  upon 
the  Earl  of  Argyle  and  his  Covenanters  and  clear  them 
off  the  face  of  the  earth. 

In  the  spoliation  of  his  English   subjects  James  I  had 
been  every  whit  as  apt  as  his  son.     It  may  be  that  in  the 
ingenuity  of  his  devices  Charles  excelled  his  father,  but 
not  in  his  predatory  aims.     In  the  matter  of  dealings  with 
Ulster,  however,  there  was  a  very  marked  contrast  between 
the  policy  of  the  father  and  of  the  son.     James  looked  upon 
himself,  and  not  without  reason,  as  the  father  of  the  Ulster 
Plantation,  and  his  rapacity  stopped  short  at  the  spoliation 
of  his  own  child.     The  rents  of  the  Londoners,  it  is  true, 
had  been  doubled  in  1624  on  the  grounds — which  were  in- 
contestable— that  they  had  acquired  far  more  land  than 
appeared  in  the  returns,  but  the  individual  Undertakers 
and  Servitors  were  gently  dealt  with.     All  through  the 
King's  correspondence  with  Chichester,  and  later  on  with 
Grandison  and  Falkland,  his  solicitude  for  the  welfare  of 
the  young  settlement  in  Ulster  is  the  predominating  note. 
Any  measure  or  move  which  retarded  its  progress  was  eyed 
with  jealousy.     With  Charles,  however,  there  was  no  such 
weak  sentiment.      To  him  the  Ulster  colony  merely  repre- 
sented a  new  field  for  the  exercise  of  his  financial  talents. 
The  colonists  had  admittedly  prospered  in  the  land  of  their 
adoption,  and  were  therefore,  he  argued,  in  a  position  to 
contribute  handsomely  to  the  royal  exchequer.     Collec- 
tively the  settlers  were  abhorrent  to  him  on  account  of 
their  strong  Presbyterian  leanings,  and  it  was  therefore 
without  a  shadow  of  compunction  that  he  braced  himself 
to  the  task  of  robbing  them  of  the  fruits  of  their  labours. 
Nor  were  the  new  settlers  the  only  sufferers.     The  "  old 
English  "  and  the  natives  were  equally  victimised.     Old 
titles  were  pried  into,  artificial  flaws  discovered,  and  ex- 
tortionate fines  exacted  for  the  grant  of  a  fresh  patent. 
The  insecurity  of  tenure,  consequent  upon  a  policy  which 
recognised  no  law  but  its  own  caprice,  filled  all  alike  with 
uneasiness.     None  knew  when  he  was  safe.     Sales  or  trans- 
fers of  property  became  impossible,  for  no  man's  title  was 
good. 


74          THE  FINANCES  OF  THE  STUARTS   [CHAP,  vm 

Two  cases  which  attracted  a  good  deal  of  attention  were 
those  of  Sir  Archibald  Acheson  and  Sir  John  Hume,  both 
Fermanagh  Servitors.  On  the  ground  that  they  had  failed 
to  carry  out  the  terms  of  the  Plantation  contracts,  their 
lands  were  declared  forfeit  to  the  Crown.  In  vain  they 
offered  to  pay  double  rents  and  a  fine  for  the  renewal  of 
their  grants.  The  estates  were  put  up  to  auction,  and  the 
two  unhappy  Servitors,  in  order  to  resume  possession  of 
their  own,  were  forced  to  bid  up  to  an  inflated  rent  calculated 
on  their  own  improvements.  In  much  alarm  at  this  and 
similar  cases,  the  country  in  1628  offered  the  King  a  subsidy 
of  £120,000,  payable  in  twelve  quarterly  instalments  of 
£10,000,  if  he  in  return  would  grant  them  certain  privileges 
or  concessions,  which  they  were  pleased  to  style  "  Graces." 
Of  these  there  were  no  less  than  fifty-one  in  the  first  list. 
Most  of  them  were  of  very  parochial  interest,  but  two  or 
three  there  were  whose  importance  to  the  new  landed 
interest  in  Ireland  could  hardly  be  exaggerated.  Among 
such  was  the  twenty-sixth  on  the  list,  which  was  brought 
into  being  by  the  arbitrary  acts  above  referred  to,  and 
which  petitioned  that  the  Undertakers  should  be  given  a 
clear  title  to  their  estates  in  perpetuity  at  double  the 
existing  rents  and  on  their  payment  of  a  fine  to  the  Crown 
of  £30  per  1,000  acres.  These  payments  were  to  be  in 
addition  to  the  subsidy.  Charles  closed  eagerly  with  the 
offer.  The  rents  were  doubled,  the  fines  paid,  and  arrange- 
ments made  for  raising  the  subsidy.  In  return  for  these 
indications  of  good-will  on  the  subjects'  side,  Falkland,  in 
the  King's  name,  undertook  to  call  a  Parliament  as  soon  as 
practicable,  to  pass  the  Acts  necessary  to  place  the  long 
list  of  Graces  on  the  Statute-book.  The  promised  Parlia- 
ment was  not  called,  and  the  majority  of  the  Graces  re- 
mained in  the  form  of  waiting  petitions.  Fresh  grants 
were,  however,  issued  to  all  the  Undertakers  on  their 
making  the  agreed  payments.1 

In  spite  of  Falkland's  failure  to  call  a  Parliament,  the 
subsidies  continued  to  be  paid,  the  only  departure  from 
the  original  programme  being  that  the  final  quarterly 
instalments  were  reduced  from  £10,000  to  £5,000,  so  that 
the  full  payment  extended  over  a  longer  period  than  was 
originally  planned.  In  the  meanwhile  Falkland,  who  had 
succeeded  in  making  himself  universally  unpopular,  was 
1  Case  of  Ulster  Undertakers,  Col.  State  Papers,  April  16.  1641. 


1632]  SIR  THOMAS  WENTWORTH  75 

recalled,  and  Loftus  and  the  Earl  of  Cork  jointly  assumed 
the  reins  of  government,  pending  the  arrival  of  the  new 
Lord  Deputy,  Sir  Thomas  Wentworth. 

Wentworth  was  appointed  on  January  12,  1632,  but 
he  was  not  able  to  cross  to  Ireland  until  the  year  following. 
While  still  in  England  he  was  able  to  arrange  for  a  sup- 
plementary subsidy  of  £20,000.  This  additional  tax  was 
agreed  to  without  demur,  but  the  next  act  of  the  new 
Lord  Deputy  gave  rise  to  a  storm  of  protest.  In  spite  of 
the  King's  undertaking  that,  if  a  specified  fine  were  paid, 
the  Undertakers  should  be  established  in  perpetuity  on 
their  lands  at  a  rent  of  £10  13s.  4>d.  per  1,000  acres  (i.e. 
double  the  original  rent),  Wentworth,  within  four  years 
of  this  promise,  raised  the  rents  by  a  further  £3  185.  4-d. 
This  brought  the  rents  of  the  Undertakers'  lands  up  to 
£14  lls.  8d.  per  1,000  acres.  The  Servitors,  whose  rents 
had  started  at  £8  6s.  8d.,  had  so  far  not  been  touched, 
except  in  individual  cases — such  as  those  of  Hume  and 
Acheson — where  they  were  found  to  have  failed  to  strictly 
carry  out  their  side  of  the  bargain.  Their  rents  were  now, 
with  a  jerk,  brought  up  to  the  same  level  as  those  of  the 
Undertakers,  and  many  of  the  natives,  though  not  all, 
were  treated  in  the  same  way.1  Charles's  only  excuse  was 
that  the  lands  could  well  afford  to  pay  the  rents  demanded. 
His  action,  in  if  act,  marks  the  inauguration  of  the  pernicious 
system  of  raising  rents  on  the  tenants'  improvements. 

It  can  readily  be  understood  that,  with  such  a  policy, 
launched  before  the  new  Deputy  had  even  set  foot  in 
Ireland,  his  advent  was  awaited  by  all  sections  of  the 
public  with  the  deepest  misgivings.  Wentworth  came  over 
hating  the  Ulster  Presbyterians  for  political  reasons,  and 
prejudiced  against  the  natives  by  the  adverse  criticism 
of  his  correspondents  in  Ireland.*  He  reached  Ireland  on 
July  23,  1633.  Whatever  may  have  been  his  private 
views,  his  public  policy  at  the  moment  was  to  court  the 
favour  of  the  Roman  Catholic  natives  with  a  view  to 
utilising  them  against  the  Puritan  menace  which  was 
already  threatening  both  him  and  his  master,  and  which 
was  destined  in  the  end  to  overwhelm  them  both.  Money, 
however,  was  the  first  consideration,  and  this  had  to  be 

1  Case  of  Ulster  Undertakers. 

8  See  Sir  Vincent  Gockin  to  Wentworth,  middle  of  1633.  Addenda, 
Cal.  State  Papers. 


76          THE  FINANCES  OF  THE  STUARTS  [CHAP,  vm 

raised  from  all  alike.  No  sooner  had  Wentworth  landed 
in  Ireland  than  he  called  for  six  new  subsidies.  No  objec- 
tions were  raised  to  this  extravagant  demand  by  the 
country's  representatives,  provided  the  subsidies  were  voted 
by  a  Parliament  which  would  simultaneously  deal  with 
the  question  of  the  Graces.  To  this  Wentworth  agreed, 
and  on  July  14,  1634,  a  Parliament  was  convened.  Went- 
worth, in  an  admirable  but  imperious  speech,  explained 
that  the  urgent  needs  of  the  State  must  have  the  first  call 
on  the  time  of  the  House,  and  that  after  the  subsidies  had 
been  voted  the  question  of  the  Graces  should  be  promptly 
dealt  with. 

At  this  the  members  not  unnaturally  murmured,  and 
finally  proved  so  refractory  that  Wentworth  had  to  bring 
pressure  to  bear  by  the  threat  that,  if  the  subsidies  were 
not  forthcoming,  he  would  be  obliged  to  enforce  the  shilling- 
a-week  statutory  fine  which  was  by  law  recoverable  from 
all  recusants  who  failed  to  attend  church.  This  was  a. 
menace  which  threatened  the  Presbyterians  no  less  than 
it  did  the  Roman  Catholics.  The  Protestant  members  of 
all  denominations,  added  to  the  Government  officials,  were 
still  in  a  majority  of  eight,  and  the  threat  had  its  desired 
effect.  Six  subsidies  of  £45,000  each  were  voted,  the  whole 
sum  to  be  paid  within  four  years.  As  soon  as  Wentworth' 
had  got  what  he  wanted,  Parliament  was  prorogued  on 
August  2.  On  November  4  it  reassembled  for  a  short 
session,  but  the  question  of  the  Graces  was  again  shelved.. 
In  the  following  year,  however,  there  were  two  short 
sessions,  during  which  the  greater  number  of  these  con- 
cessions were  passed.  This  tardy  act  of  honour  and  justice 
was  marred  by  the  deliberate  omission  of  the  two  particular 
Graces  to  which  more  importance  was  attached  than  to  all 
the  rest  of  the  long  category  of  trivial  petitions.  These  two 
much-desired  measures  were  :  1.  That  no  title  to  land 
should  be  questioned  where  the  owner  had  been  in  peace- 
able possession  for  sixty  years.  2.  That  enquiry  into  the 
good  title  of  land  should  not  go  back  beyond  the  rights  of 
the  last  owner.1 

On  these  two  long-promised  concessions  public  anxiety 
became  henceforth  focussed,  but,  as  these  were  the  very 
two  which  would  have  restricted  the  King's  power  to  fine 
and  confiscate  as  he  would,  the  reiterated  petitions  of  the 

1  Hickson's  Ireland  in  the  Seventeenth  Century. 


1635]     CHARLES   AND   THE  LONDON   COMPANIES   77 

landowners,  both  Anglo-Irish  and  native,  were  productive 
of  nothing  more  substantial  than  continual  promises,  which, 
in  the  end,  bore  no  fruit.  As  though  to  emphasise  his 
reluctance  to  curtail  in  any  way  his  power  of  imposing 
fines  as  an  alternative  to  confiscation,  the  King  now  made 
an  unexpected  onslaught  on  the  position  of  the  London 
Companies;  He  brought  a  suit  against  them  for  mis- 
representation, and  for  combining  to  defraud  him  of  his 
rents.  His  case  was  that,  whereas  they  were  returned  as 
owning  only  37,000  acres,  in  reality  they  owned  250,000  ; 
and  that  the  Treasury  had  therefore  been  defrauded  of 
the  difference  for  twenty-five  years  past.  This  discovery 
was  made  by  Wentworth,  and  elicited  much  gratitude  from 
the  King.  "  I  can  assure  you,"  Secretary  Coke  wrote  to 
the  Deputy,  "  that  the  King  is  pleased  with  your  discovery 
of  the  gross  abuse  in  the  quantity  of  land  gained  in  the 
admeasurement."  1  A  very  partial  Court,  appointed  to 
adjudicate  the  question  in  May  1635,  found  that  the  King 
was  entitled  to  a  fine  of  £85,000.  This  was  generously 
reduced  to  £70,000,  which  was  to  be  paid  off  in  four  and 
a  half  years.  Bramhall,  Bishop  of  Derry,  was  appointed 
Receiver  of  all  the  Companies'  revenues  till  the  fine  was 
paid.2  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  was  never  paid.  The  Lon- 
doners, after  many  negotiations  and  much  correspondence, 
finally  made  a  composition  with  the  King  by  a  payment 
of  a  fine  of  £12,000  and  the  surrender  of  their  patents.1 
This  was  merely  a  method  of  extending  the  original  fine 
over  a  term  of  years.  A  commission  was  issued  to  Sir 
Ralph  Whitfield  and  Sir  Thomas  Fotherly  to  accept  the 
surrender  of  all  the  manors  named  in  the  City  grants,  and 
to  relet  them  to  fresh  applicants.  The  fresh  applicants 
were — as  a  matter  of  fact — the  original  grantees,  whom 
the  King  was  graciously  pleased  to  reinstate  in  their  lands, 
the  natives  at  doubled  rents  and  the  Protestant  colonists 
at  trebled  rents.4 

The  payment  of  the  six  subsidies  voted  covered  a  period 
of  five  years  instead  of  the  four  years  originally  prescribed, 
and  in  March  1640  Wentworth — recently  created  Earl  of 
Strafford  and  Lord-Lieutenant  of  Ireland — called  a  new 

1  Addenda,  Gal.  State  Papers. 

2  Reid's  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

3  Sir  Thomas  Phillips  to  the  King,  May  1635. 

*  Memo,  of  the  Irish  Parliament  on  the  Londonderry  question,  Addenda, 
Cal.  State  Papers,  1640. 


78          THE  FINANCES  OF  THE  STUARTS  [CHAP,  viii 

Parliament  for  the  purpose  of  voting  six  new  subsidies; 
Strafford  himself  was  too  ill  with  gout  to  be  able  to  attend 
the  session  in  person,  but  the  Council,  under  his  direction, 
dwelt  with  telling  effect  on  the  urgent  necessity  which 
existed  for  the  subsidies  being  voted,  in  order  to  furnish 
the  King  with  means  to  carry  on  his  war  against  the 
Covenanters.  In  this  Parliament  the  Roman  Catholics 
were  in  a  slight  majority,  and  were  in  natural  sympathy 
with  the  objects  of  a  war  which  aimed  at  checking  the 
alarming  growth  of  the  Puritan  movement.  The  Protestant 
minority  was  cajoled  into  conformity  by  the  stale  promise 
that  the  outstanding  Graces  would  be  conceded ;  but  not 
even  then  would  the  Parliament  commit  itself  to  more 
than  four  subsidies,1  the  members  being  wisely  determined 
to  wait  and  see  what  the  effect  of  these  four  was  against 
the  Puritan  menace,  before  committing  themselves  to  the 
last  two. 

Such  was  the  position  of  affairs  when,  on  April  4, 
Strafford  left  Ireland,  never — as  events  proved — to  return. 
Wandesford  was  appointed  his  Deputy  in  Ireland,  but 
survived  his  appointment  but  a  few  weeks,  after  which 
Sir  William  Parsons  and  Lord  Dillon  were  appointed 
Lords  Justices,  the  latter  being  almost  at  once  replaced 
by  Sir  John  Borlase. 

While  these  quick  changes  were  being  registered  in 
Ireland,  even  more  startling  developments  had  taken 
place  in  England.  Strafford  had  lost  his  head  within  five 
weeks  of  his  return  to  England.  Laud  was  in  the 
Tower,  and  Charles  and  his  Puritan  Parliament  were  pre- 
paring for  war.  Parsons  and  Borlase  were  strict  Parlia- 
mentarians, and  their  views  on  the  question  of  subsidies, 
the  main  purpose  of  which  was  to  finance  the  King  in  his 
struggle  against  Parliament,  were  very  wide  of  those 
entertained  by  Strafford.  One  subsidy  had  been  paid, 
but,  before  the  others  followed,  a  respectful  but  firm 
demand  was  made  for  the  grant  of  the  long-withheld 
Graces.  This  demand  produced  from  the  King  the  follow- 
ing letter,  written  to  the  Lords  Justices  on  April  3,  1641  : 
"  The  Lords  and  Commons  of  Ireland  ask  us  for  the  fulfil- 
ment of  certain  Graces  promised  them  in  1628.  We  grant 

1  The  first  of  these  subsidies  was  paid  in  full.  The  second  and  third 
produced  conjointly  £23,000,  and  the  fourth  was  never  paid  on  account 
of  the  rebellion. 


1641]     THE   LORDS  JUSTICES  AND   THE   KING        79 

their  request  and  order  you — to  the  end  of  their  execution — 
to  send  over  the  following  Bills  for  our  assent."  Then 
followed  a  schedule  of  five  Bills,  one  of  which  dealt  satis- 
factorily with  the  burning  question  of  the  non-disturbance 
of  landed  proprietors  of  over  sixty  years'  standing.1 

This  letter  from  the  King  crossed  one  from  the  Lords 
Justices  to  Vane,  in  which  was  set  forth  the  hard  case  of 
the  upper  classes  in  Ireland,  on  whom  alone  the  burden  of 
the  subsidies  fell,  and  practically  insisting  on  the  redress 
of  certain  grievances,  if  any  more  subsidies  were  to  be 
forthcoming.  "  The  incidence  of  taxation  on  the  nobility,'* 
they  said,  "  is  not,  we  think,  much  heavier  than  it  was  in 
the  time  of  Lord  Chichester's  Government,  although  there 
has  been  a  rise  in  agricultural  values  since  that  time. 
The  yield  of  the  tax  is  now  much  heavier  than  it  was  at  the 
earlier  date,  owing  to  the  increase  in  the  number  of  noble- 
men. At  both  times  the  nobility  were  taxed  very  highly. 
The  Lords  now  wish  to  pay  2  per  cent,  of  the  annual  value 
of  their  lands,  and  the  King  has  given  in  on  this  point. 
We  dare  not,  in  view  of  the  present  financial  needs  of  the 
country,  suggest  the  levelling  down  of  the  subsidy  of  the 
Peers  to  the  rate  paid  by  the  Commons.  Our  conclusion 
is  that,  on  any  part  of  the  three  subsequent  subsidies  still 
unpaid,  there  should  be  an  abatement  of  25  per  cent., 
provided  this  be  not  considered  as  a  precedent.  We  hope 
for  instructions,  in  the  absence  of  which  no  money  can  be 
collected."  8  The  last  sentence  is  so  defiant  as  to  show 
that  the  shadow  of  Strafford  had  passed  for  ever  from  the 
land,  and  that,  to  those  who  reigned  in  his  place,  the 
suppression  of  the  Covenanters  appeared  less  important 
than  the  conservation  of  Irish  resources.  With  a  view  to 
bringing  matters  to  a  head,  a  committee  of  the  Irish 
Parliament  was  sent  over  to  Whitehall  with  a  long  list  of 
grievances,  which  touched  all  grades  of  society,  from  the 
noble  to  the  peasant.  Charles  studied  these  for  some 
weeks,  and,  on  July  16,  made  the  following  declaration  : 
"  The  King,  having  several  times  heard  the  committee  of 
the  Irish  Parliament,  and  being  ready  to  grant  their 
petition  as  far  as  could  well  stand  with  the  services  of  His 
Majesty  and  the  present  constitution  of  that  kingdom,  or 
with  the  nature  of  the  things  desired  by  them,  has  this 

1  King  to  Lords  Justices,  April  3,  1641. 
•  Lords  Justices  to  Vane,  April  10,  1641. 


80          THE  FINANCES  OF  THE  STUARTS  [CHAP,  vm 

day  ordered  that  Sir  Dudley  Carleton  collect  and  write 
out  the  grievances  and  the  King's  answers  thereto,  and 
enter  both  in  the  register  of  the  Acts  of  the  Council." 
Attached  to  the  letter  was  a  list  of  thirty-seven  distinct 
grievances,  with  the  King's  comments  appended.  The 
majority  dealt  with  petty  matters  of  Inland  Revenue  and 
Excise,  which  have  little  permanent  interest.  One  brought 
up  the  old  question  of  the  Graces.  "  The  Graces,"  it  said, 
"  mentioned  in  the  former  remonstrance  should  be  exe- 
cuted "  ;  to  which  the  King — ever  procrastinating  and 
undecided — replied  :  "A  Bill  to  be  sent  over  as  Poynings 
Act  requires  on  this  point." 

The  most  instructive  of  the  thirty-seven  petitions,  and 
one  that  speaks  eloquently  of  the  general  hatred  that 
Straff ord  had  left  behind  him,  runs  as  follows  :  "  That 
the  part  of  the  Preamble  to  the  Subsidy  Act  referring  to 
the  Earl  of  Straff  ord  in  flattering  terms  be  repealed." 
The  words  in  question,  to  which  the  Irish  representatives 
took  exception,  ran  as  follows  :  "  And  particularly  in 
providing  and  placing  over  us  so  just,  wise,  vigilant  and 
profitable  a  Governor  as  the  Right  Honourable  Sir  Thomas 
Wentworth,  Earl  of  Strafford,  who,  by  his  great  care 
and  travail  of  body  and  mind,  sincere  and  upright  adminis- 
tration of  justice  without  partiality ;  the  increase  of 
Your  Majesty's  revenue  without  the  least  hurt  or  grievance 
to  any  your  well-disposed  and  loving  subjects,  and  to 
our  great  comfort  and  security ;  the  large  and  ample 
benefits  which  we  have  received,  and  hope  to  receive, 
by  His  Majesty's  committee  of  grace  for  remedy  of  defective 
titles  procured  hitherto  by  His  Lordship  ;  his  pains  in 
the  restoration  of  the  Church  ;  the  reinforcement  of  the 
Army  within  this  kingdom  ;  his  support  of  Your  Majesty's 
wholesome  laws  here  esta-blished  ;  his  encouragement  and 
countenance  to  your  judges  and  other  good  officers, 
ministers  and  disposers  of  the  laws  ;  his  care  to  relieve 
and  redress  the  poor  and  oppressed  ;  for  this  your  tender 
care  over  us  showed  by  the  deputing  and  support  of  so 
good  a  Governor,  we  your  faithful  subjects  acknowledge 
ourselves  more  bound  than  we  can  with  tongues  or  pen 
express."  l  For  this  rhapsody,  which  had  in  all  probability 
been  composed  by  Strafford  himself  before  his  departure 
from  Ireland,  the  knights,  citizens  and  burgesses  of  Ireland 
1  Col.  State  Papers,  Charles,  March  9,  1641. 


1641]     STRAFFORD  AND  THE  LINEN  TRADE          81 

substituted  the  following  amendment,  which,  though 
erring  on  the  side  of  exaggeration,  was  no  doubt  nearer 
the  truth  than  the  original :  "  That  this  kingdom,  at 
such  time  as  the  Earl  of  Strafford  first  obtained  the  govern- 
ment thereof,  was  in  flourishing,  happy  and  wealthy 
estate,  and  that  since  the  said  Earl  of  Strafford  first 
obtained  the  government,  his  advisers,  councillors  and 
ministers  have  altered  the  face  of  the  government  of  the 
said  kingdom  by  the  introduction  of  a  new,  unlawful, 
arbitrary  and  tyrannical  government ;  by  the  determining 
of  all  or  most  causes  upon  paper,  petitions  and  other 
unjust  and  unwarrantable  proceedings  and  actions,  to 
the  particular  profit  of  himself  and  his  ministers,  tending 
to  the  great  impoverishment  and  destruction  of  His 
Majesty's  said  faithful  subjects  and  the  subversion  of 
the  former  mild,  laudable  and  legal  government  for  many 
ages  past  settled  and  established  in  this  kingdom.  And 
further  that  the  Earl  and  his  Ministers  have,  beyond  all 
measure  and  moderation,  advanced  and  enriched  them- 
selves by  extortions,  oppressions  and  all  sorts  of  injustices, 
to  the  general  grief  and  discontent  of  His  Majesty's  said 
faithful  people."  1 

The  voice  of  the  knights,  citizens  and  burgesses  was 
the  voice  of  a  united  Ireland.  In  the  north,  Strafford 
was  hated  as  the  very  embodiment  of  evil.  The  only 
claim  that  his  memory  had  to  respect  was  over  the  matter 
of  the  linen  trade.  Although  it  cannot  be  said  that  he 
was  the  founder  of  the  Ulster  linen  trade,  it  must  be 
admitted  that  he  gave  the  industry  an  enormous  stimulus. 
He  took  great  pains  to  import  the  best  seed,  and  a  number 
of  expert  loom-makers  from  Holland.  In  1636  £1,000 
worth  of  this  seed  was  sown.  "  I  am  confident,"  Strafford 
wrote,  "  it  will  prove  a  mighty  business  considering  that, 
in  all  probability,  we  shall  be  able  to  under-sell  the  linen 
cloths  of  Holland  and  France  at  least  twenty  in  the  hun- 
dred." *  It  was  freely  hinted  that  the  Lord-Lieutenant's 
efforts  on  behalf  of  the  linen  trade  were  not  entirely 
disinterested,  and  that  he  himself  was  no  small  gainer 
over  the  business.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  fully  established 
that  he  embarked  a  good  deal  of  his  own  capital  in  the 
venture,  and  had  therefore  every  right  to  participate  in 

1  Protest  to  the  Preamble  to  the  Irish  Act  of  Subsidy. 

2  Strafford  to  Wandesford,  July  25,  1631. 


82          THE  FINANCES  OF  THE  STUARTS  [CHAP,  vin 

the  profits.  Any  faint  debt  of  gratitude  which  the  north 
may  have  owed  to  Strafford  over  his  encouragement  of 
the  linen  trade  was  more  than  discounted  by  his  ferocious 
hostility  to  the  Scotch  Presbyterians.  Strafford — whose 
best  point  was  his  unswerving  devotion  to  his  King — 
was  before  all  other  things  an  Episcopalian.  Whether  his 
narrow  intolerance  in  religious  matters  was  merely  a 
reflection  of  his  loyalty  to  Charles,  or  whether  it  had 
a  deeper  root,  is  a  matter  for  doubt.  George  Radclyffe, 
his  cousin,  secretary  and  biographer,  would  have  us 
believe  that  deep  religious  convictions  were  at  the  back 
of  his  attitude ;  but  this  statement  is  not  easy  of  accept- 
ance. On  the  other  hand,  his  dread  and  dislike  of  the 
Presbyterians,  from  the  purely  royalist  point  of  view,  is 
understandable.  They  were  the  Radicals  of  the  day, 
questioning  the  King's  divine  rights  in  matters  both 
civil  and  religious,  and  parading  a  new  and  dangerous 
independence  of  thought.  To  Strafford,  no  less  than  to 
Laud,  this  sect  represented  a  cancerous  growth,  which 
called  for  the  firm  application  of  the  knife.  With  this  end 
in  view,  shortly  before  his  recall  to  England  he  appointed 
a  High  Commission  Court,  the  first  business  of  which  was 
the  rigid  enforcement  of  conformity.  The  Court  per- 
formed its  functions  with  vigour,  but  with  a  partiality 
which  soon  made  it  clear  that  strict  conformity  was  not 
its  real  aim.  Every  engine  of  persecution  within  the 
grasp  of  the  High  Commission  Court  was  directed  against 
the  Ulster  Presbyterians,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  all 
the  old  indulgences  to  the  Roman  Catholics,  which  had 
been  suspended  under  Loftus  and  Cork,  became  once 
more  a  recognised  part  of  the  government  programme. 
This  was  a  purely  political  move.  Strafford  had  no 
greater  love  for  the  Roman  Catholics  than  he  had  for 
the  Presbyterians,  but  he  recognised  in  the  former  a 
potential  ally  which  might  prove  of  the  highest  value,  if 
the  differences  between  the  King  and  the  Parliament  had 
to  be  decided  by  the  sword.  The  nonconformity  of  the 
Roman  Catholics  was  therefore  winked  at,  while  that  of 
the  Presbyterians  was  attacked  with  the  utmost  virulence. 
One  of  the  first  acts  of  the  High  Commission  Court 
was  to  issue  a  warrant  to  the  Bishop  of  Down  to  arrest 
and  imprison  all  Nonconformists.1  This  warrant,  which 

1  Reid's  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 


1689]  THE    BLACK   OATH  88 

was  quite  illegal,  and  which  formed  the  basis  of  one  of 
the  charges  subsequently  filed  against  Strafford,  was  to 
be  enforced  against  Presbyterians  only.  No  Roman 
Catholic  was  interfered  with.  A  further  and  more  trans- 
parent proof  of  Strafford's  real  aim  was  furnished  by  his 
attitude  in  the  matter  of  the  Black  Oath.  In  January 
1639,  Charles  had  suggested  to  his  Deputy  that  it  would 
be  desirable  that  the  Ulster  Presbyterians  should  be 
required  to  take  the  Oath  of  Supremacy.  Strafford 
concurred  in  the  idea,  and  the  machinery  for  enforcing 
the  Oath  was  set  in  motion.  The  actual  Oath  itself  had 
been  instituted  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII,  but  had  seldom, 
if  ever,  been  put  in  force.  By  its  terms,  every  one,  of 
either  sex,  over  the  age  of  sixteen  was  required  to  swear 
never  to  oppose  any  of  the  King's  commands,  and  to  take 
no  oath  or  covenant  of  a  contrary  nature.  In  its  appli- 
cation to  Ulster  no  attempt  was  made  to  enforce  the 
Oath  on  the  Roman  Catholics.  Such  was  not  Charles's 
aim.  His  aim  was  to  draw  the  teeth  of  the  Presbyterians 
in  case  these  might  feel  disposed  in  the  future  to  range 
themselves  against  him  on  the  side  of  the  Parliament. 

In  face  of  a  situation  which  to  them  represented  vital 
issues,  the  distracted  Presbyterians  tried  to  procure  the 
introduction  of  the  word  "  lawful "  before  "  Oath,"  in 
which  case  their  main  objection  would  have  been  removed ; 
but  the  point  was  not  yielded.  Commissions  were  issued 
to  all  the  magistrates  in  the  north  to  enforce  the  adminis- 
tration of  the  Oath  in  their  respective  districts.  One 
thousand  five  hundred  Roman  Catholic  troops,  under  the 
command  of  Strafford's  cousin,  Sir  George  Radclyffe, 
were  sent  up  to  Carrickfergus  and  neighbourhood,  to  act 
as  a  deterrent  to  any  combination  for  resistance.1  Some 
complied  with  the  requirements  of  the  Oath,  sorely  against 
their  consciences,  for  religious  no  less  than  civil  liberty 
was  relinquished  under  its  terms ;  others  obstinately 
refused.  Many  fled  and  hid  in  the  woods  and  mountains  ; 
many  others  left  the  country  for  ever,  and  escaped  to 
Scotland.  So  depopulated  did  some  parts  of  Antrim 
become  that  the  harvest  had  to  be  left  out  in  the  fields 
for  want  of  labour.  The  persecution  of  those  that  re- 
mained was  very  severe ;  many  were  imprisoned  and 
fined  to  an  extent  which  meant — and  which  was  designed 

1  Reid's  History  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 


84          THE  FINANCES  OF  THE   STUARTS   [CHAP,  vm 

to  mean — ruin.  Mr.  Henry  Stewart,  e.g.,  was  fined  £5,000 
and  his  wife  £5,000  ;  each  of  his  two  daughters  £2,000, 
and  his  servant  £2,000.  All  were  imprisoned  until  the 
fines  were  paid.1 

The  unpopularity  of  the  Presbyterians  in  Dublin  circles 
was  in  the  main  due  to  the  iron  severity  of  their  religious 
tenets,  and  to  the  stern  disapproval  with  which  they 
viewed  the  contrasting  laxity  of  the  other  Christian  sects. 
This  laxity  had  for  some  time  past  constituted  a  source 
of  public  scandal.  The  Episcopalian  clergy  were  in  most 
cases  mere  land  speculators,  and — from  all  accounts — 
of  a  very  unscrupulous  type.  It  is  very  difficult,  from 
a  study  of  the  State  correspondence  of  the  day,  to  deduce 
any  active  hostility  on  the  part  of  the  natives  to  the  lay 
settlers  from  Great  Britain,  but  hostility  to  the  Epis- 
copalian clergy  stands  out  from  every  page.  This  may 
have  been,  and  no  doubt  was,  encouraged  by  the  priests 
for  their  own  ends,  but  none  the  less  the  hostility  was  not 
without  grounds.  The  chief  grievance  in  this  connection 
was  over  the  milk-tithe.  The  scandalous  abuse  of  this 
tax  by  the  clergy  had  been  severely  criticised  by  Chichester 
as  early  as  1614.  The  clergy,  in  retaliation,  had  accused 
Chichester  of  an  impious  desire  to  injure  the  Church. 
No  abatement  of  the  abuse,  however,  had  followed. 
The  practice  had,  in  fact,  spread  rather  than  the  contrary 
in  the  course  of  years.  The  nature  of  the  grievance  was 
as  follows  :  coin  of  the  realm  was  very  scarce  in  Ireland, 
and  most  payments  were  made  in  kind.  It  was  cus- 
tomary for  the  Church  tithes  to  be  paid  in  milk,  and  as 
the  clergy  were  non-resident  in  the  majority  of  their 
cures  (of  which  they  always  had  a  plurality)  the  habit 
grew  of  farming  out  their  milk-tithes  to  the  highest  bidder, 
a  practice  out  of  which  arose  many  abuses  and  much 
discontent.  On  the  side  of  the  clergy  it  was  urged  that 
the  Church  lands  allotted  to  them  under  the  Plantation 
were  so  dovetailed  in  between  the  allotments  of  the  Under- 
takers and  the  Servitors,  and  were  consequently  so  scattered 
that  they  were  practically  valueless  to  the  beneficiary. 
They  were  seldom  even  in  the  parish  to  which  they  were 
attached  and  where  the  incumbent  lived,  or  was  supposed 
to  live.*  Where  such  conditions  were  forced  upon  the 
clergy,  irregular  methods  of  collection  and  I  irregular 
1  Nalson,  vol.  ii.  p.  78.  a  Clogy^Life  of  Bedell. 


1641]  LAXITY  OF  THE  CLERGY  85 

ministration   of  their  office   naturally  followed.     Bishop 
Bramhall  wrote  to  Laud  in  1633  :    "  It  is  hard  to  say 
whether  the  Church  be  more  ruinous  and  sordid,  or  the 
people  more  irreverent.     Even  in  Dublin  we  find  a  parochial 
church  converted  into  one  of  the  Lord  Deputy's  stalls, 
a  second  to  a  nobleman's  dwelling-house,  the  choir  of  a 
third  into  a  tennis-court  with  the  vicar  for  keeper.     One 
Bishop,  in  a  remote  part  of  the  kingdom,  holds  twenty- three 
benefices.     Seldom  any  suitor  petitions  for  less  than  three 
vicarages  at  a  time."     Bramhall  himself,  if  we  can  believe 
contemporary  critics,  was  no  model  of  integrity.     Two 
men  only,  in  fact,  can  at  this  period  be  said  to  stand  out 
conspicuously  from  the  slipshod  rabble  of  Episcopalian 
divines  which  preyed  on  the  country ;    Dr.  Usher,  the 
Primate,  and  William  Bedell,   Bishop  of  Kilmore.     The 
latter  was — by  the  agreement  of  all  parties — one  of  the 
saintliest  men  of  all  times.     He  laboured  without  ceasing, 
and  with  a  fair  measure  of  success,  to  reform  his  own 
diocese,  the  lamentable  condition  of  which  he  candidly 
admitted.     Outside   of  the   limits   of  this   one   spiritual 
oasis  in  Cavan,  there  was  very  little  that  was  creditable 
in   the   conduct   of  matters   Episcopalian.     Settlers   and 
natives    alike    groaned    under    the    depredations    of   the 
Church.     Among    the    thirty-seven    grievances    filed    by 
the   knights,  citizens  and  burgesses  in  July  1641,  was  a 
petition  that  "  the  exorbitant  and  barbarous  customs  of 
the  clergy,  voted  to  be  abolished  by  the  House  of  Commons, 
should  be  taken  away  by  Act  of  Parliament." 

For  an  illustration  of  the  condition  in  which  the  Roman 
Catholic  clergy  lived  the  reader  is  referred  to  Mr.  Clogy's 
description  of  his  visit  to  McSweeney,  the  Roman  Catholic 
Bishop  of  Kilmore,  in  1642.1 

From  the  charges  levelled  against  the  Episcopalian 
and  Roman  Catholic  clergy  the  Presbyterian  ministers 
in  Ulster  were  admittedly  free.  Stratford's  rancour 
against  them,  and  those  they  ministered  to,  was  purely 
political,  and  based  on  the  not  unreasonable  grounds 
that  their  co-religionists  in  Scotland  were  at  the  moment 
in  open  and  armed  defiance  of  the  King.  In  the  spring 
of  1639,  when  the  Black  Oath  was  being  forced  upon  the 
Ulster  Presbyterians,  the  King  was  not  yet  actually  at 
war  with  the  Covenanters,  but  it  was  fully  recognised 

i  Clogy's  Life  of  Bedell. 


86  THE  FINANCES  OF  THE  STUARTS   [CHAP,  vin 

that  war  was  inevitable,   and  active  preparations  were 
'  being  made  on  both  sides  for  an  encounter  which  could 
by   no   possibility   be   much   longer   averted.     With   the 
sympathies  of  the  English  people  leaning  so  markedly 
in  the  direction  of  the  Covenanters  that  the  raising  of  a 
volunteer   army    was    impossible,    and    with   the    royal 
exchequer  so  drained  that  a  paid  army  was  all   but  out 
of  reach,   it  was  agreed  between  Charles  and  Strafford 
that  the  simplest  course  open  to  them  was  to  enlist  the 
services  of  the  Irish  Roman  Catholics,  as  being  the  one 
section  of  the  public  within  the  British  Isles  whose  hatred 
and  fear  of  the   Covenanters  was   equal  to  their  own. 
It  is  possible  that,  in  order  to  stimulate  recruiting,  ex- 
aggerated accounts  were  put  about  by  Strafford  and  his 
agents  of  the  dangers  which  threatened  the  native  Irish 
population,   were  the  growth  of  the  Covenanting  move- 
ment not  checked.     After  1641   it  was   claimed   by  the 
Irish  that  the  rising  had  been  largely  prompted  by  the 
fear  which  was  generally  entertained  of  the  extermination 
of  the   native    population   by   an   invasion   of  fanatical 
Covenanters.     That  this  excuse — as  an  excuse — crumbles 
away  before  a  close  examination  of  facts  will  be  shown 
in  due  course,  but  none  the  less  the  probability  remains 
that  attempts  may  have  been  made  to  inspire  some  such 
fear,  in  order  to  increase  the  readiness  of  the  Irish  to  arm. 
Strafford  started  his  recruiting  campaign  in  Lent,  1639, 
and  within  a  year  he  had  raised  from  among  the  native 
Irish  an  army  of  8,000  foot  and  1,000  horse,  which  he 
reported  would  be  ready  to  sail  for  Scotland  by  the  middle 
of  May.1     The  Earl  of  Ormonde  was  appointed  Commander- 
in-Chief,  and  Sir  William  St.  Leger  Sergeant-Major.     All 
the  officers  were  Protestants,  but  the  vast  majority  of 
the  rank  and  file  were  Roman  Catholics.     The  new  army 
was  sent  to  Carrickfergus  to  be  ready  for  embarkation 
at  a  moment's  notice,  and  at  Carrickfergus  it  remained 
all  through  the  summer  and  winter  of  1640  and  up  to 
May  1641.     The  original  date  of  sailing  was  postponed, 
as  such  dates  usually  are  postponed.     Then  came  Conway's 
ignominious  defeat  at  Newburn   in   August  1640,  which 
made  it  clear  that  to  launch  the  Carrickfergus  army  unaided 
against  the  victorious  Scots  would  have  been  to  invite 
disaster.     So  at  Carrickfergus  they  still  remained,  to  the 

1  Strafford  to  Windebank,  April  4,  1640. 


1641]  THE  IRISH  ARMY  DISBANDED  87 

very  grave  discomfort  of  the  neighbourhood.  The  men 
were  heavily  drilled,  but  very  lightly  paid,  and  they  soon 
took  to  plundering  the  country  round  for  their  subsistence. 
The  complaints  of  the  farmers,  coupled  with  an  appeal 
for  the  demobilisation  of  the  force,  were  productive  of 
no  redress.  As  long  as  Windebank  was  alive,  he  and  his 
royal  master  clung  to  the  hope  that  an  opportunity  might 
yet  occur  of  advantageously  using  an  army  whose  natural 
prejudices  fitted  in  so  conveniently  with  their  own.  The 
Roman  Catholic  majority  in  Parliament  was  also  strongly 
opposed  to  the  demobilisation  of  this  native  army,  for 
reasons  which  were  little  guessed  at  the  time,  but  which 
became  very  clear  in  the  light  of  subsequent  events.  On 
the  English  side  of  the  Channel,  Strafford  was  also  reluctant 
to  disband  a  force,  which  he  had  been  at  no  little  pains  to 
raise,  without  utilising  it  for  some  purpose  ;  and,  sooner 
than  do  this,  he  actually  conceived  the  insane  project  of 
using  the  native  Irish  army  to  drive  the  Ulster  Presby- 
terians out  of  Ireland.  On  October  8,  1640,  he  com- 
municated this  scheme  to  Radclyffe  in  a  private  letter, 
but  his  cousin  had  the  sense  to  treat  the  whole  matter  as 
the  outcome  of  a  disordered  brain,  and  wisely  kept  the 
contents  of  the  letter  to  himself.1 

On  the  successive  deaths  of  Windebank  and  Strafford, 
the  control  of  Irish  affairs  passed  into  the  hands  of  the  two 
Parliamentarians  Parsons  and  Borlase,  and  Charles  knew 
that  the  fate  of  his  Irish  army  was  sealed.  Having  failed 
to  utilise  it  for  military  purposes,  he  made  a  last  attempt 
to  turn  it  into  money  by  disposing  of  the  whole  force  to 
the  King  of  Spain.  On  May  13,  1641,  he  issued  orders 
to  seven  officers,  specially  selected  and  named,  to  take 
charge  of  1,000  men  each  and  sail  for  Spain.  Only  one 
of  the  officers,  Captain  Bellings,  was  able  to  carry  out  his 
orders.  The  other  six  failed.  The  priests  and  friars 
made  desperate  efforts  to  prevent  the  men  from  leaving 
the  country  ;  the  soldiers  themselves,  under  this  encourage- 
ment, became  mutinous  and  refused  to  embark ;  the 
Government  had  no  means  of  compelling  their  obedience, 
and  in  September  1641  they  were  disbanded. 

1  Whittaker's  Life  of  Radclyffe. 


PART  II 

THE  IRISH  RISING  OF  1641,  WITH  A  DETAILED 
ACCOUNT  OF  THE  MASSACRES 


89 


CHAPTER  I 

HISTORICAL   REVIEW 

IN  any  critical  study  dealing  with  the  revolt  of  a  native, 
and — for  the  purposes  of  argument — an  indigenous  people 
against  the  encroachments  of  colonists  of  another  race, 
the  views  of  native  writers  would  seem  to  have  a  prima 
facie  claim  to  consideration.  In  the  matter  of  the  1641 
rising,  however,  the  Irish  narratives  content  themselves 
with  a  bare  recital  of  strongholds  captured  and  Castles 
surprised  during  the  first  few  days.  The  horrible  occur- 
rences which  followed,  and  which  are  commonly  known 
as  the  "  massacres,"  are  not  even  hinted  at.  A  reader 
with  access  to  no  other  sources  of  information  would 
form  the  conclusion  that  the  recapture  of  Ulster  by  the 
Irish  had  been  a  practically  bloodless  achievement.  To 
a  certain  extent,  many  British  accounts  of  the  subsequent 
suppression  of  the  rising  are  open  to  the  same  criticism. 
Historians  describe  in  detail  the  successive  British  victories 
in  the  field,  with  the  numbers  killed  on  each  occasion ;  but 
the  massacres  of  women  and  children  that  filled  up  the 
gaps  between  the  victories  are  passed  over  in  silence — 
not,  it  would  seem,  because  these  were  accounted  deeds 
of  shame,  but  because  they  were  not  considered  of  sufficient 
public  interest  to  merit  a  place  in  history. 

Widely  different  reasons,  however,  are  assignable  for 
the  suppression  of  the  details  of  the  1641  massacres  by 
certain  of  our  more  modern  historians.  In  the  case  of 
these  the  motive  for  suppression  is  either  sentimental  or 
political,  and  the  justification  for  suppression  is  found  in 
the  silence  of  some  of  the  British  chroniclers  of  the  seven- 
teenth century.  If  the  Irish  had  risen  against  a  united 
Britain,  and  if  a  united  Britain  had  suppressed  the  rising, 
the  issues  before  modern  historians  would  at  any  rate  have 
been  definite.  We  should  then  have  had,  on  the  one  side, 
the  British  view,  on  the  other  the  Irish.  Unfortunately, 
however,  for  history,  the  country  was  at  the  time  divided 
into  two  very  bitter  antagonistic  factions,  indifferently 

91 


92  HISTORICAL  REVIEW  [CHAP,  i 

known — according  to  date  and  locality — as  Royalists 
and  Parliamentarians,  Cavaliers  and  Roundheads,  Prelatists 
and  Covenanters,  and  between  these  two  factions  there 
was,  both  at  the  date  of  the  rising  and  for  many  years 
after,  an  irreconcilable  hatred.  This  hatred  is  so  strongly 
reflected  in  the  histories  of  the  times  that  we  find  truth 
continually  subordinated  to  the  eternal  desire  to  throw 
discredit  on  the  other  party.  At  the  first  outbreak  of 
the  rising  a  common  danger  for  the  time  united  both 
parties  against  the  Irish,  but  the  moment  it  became 
apparent  that  the  rebel  forces  were  far  less  formidable 
than  had  been  at  first  reported,  it  became  a  matter  of 
less  importance  in  the  eyes  of  the  Royalists  and  Parlia- 
mentarians to  repress  the  Irish  than  to  hamper  and 
traduce  each  other.  "  It  became  the  fashion  for  both 
parties  to  cast  upon  each  other  the  blame  of  the  Irish 
insurrection,  and  the  reproach  of  having  failed  to  use 
due  means  to  suppress  it."  l 

When  the  parliamentary  revolt  in  England  began  to 
take  on  the  appearance  of  war,  and  when  the  armed 
forces  of  the  Parliament  began  to  threaten  Charles's  foot- 
hold in  Ireland,  Ormonde,  in  the  hopes  of  helping  his 
royal  master,  was  forced  into  an  alliance  with  the  Irish 
rebels,  whom,  a  year  earlier,  he  had  been  pursuing  at  the 
point  of  the  sword.  It  is  from  this  unnatural  alliance — 
the  outcome  of  a  desperate  situation — that  all  the  diffi- 
culties of  the  historian  arise ;  for  the  royalist  writers  of 
the  day — in  their  endeavour  to  justify  the  alliance — were 
forced  not  only  to  push  as  far  as  possible  out  of  sight  the 
recent  misdeeds  of  the  Irish,  but  even  to  throw  discredit, 
wherever  possible,  on  the  leaders  who  put  down  the  rising, 
in  every  case  where  such  leaders  happened  to  be  Parlia- 
mentarians. The  most  prominent  apostle  of  this  doctrine 
was  naturally  Carte,  who,  as  Ormonde's  biographer,  was 
unavoidably  driven  to  some  such  course,  and  it  is  on 
Carte  that  the  anti-British  propagandists  mainly  rely. 
Clarendon  and  Nalson,  though  pronounced  Royalists, 
were  not  Ormonde's  biographers,  and  were  therefore  free 
from  the  necessity  of  straining  after  a  justification  of 
the  Marquis's  ultimate  alliance  with  the  native  Irish. 
Nalson  was,  in  any  case,  more  of  a  recorder  than  an  historian, 
and  Clarendon  was  before  all  else  the  apologist  of  Charles  I, 
1  Somers's  Historical  Tracts,  vol.  v.  p.  572. 


1641]  CONFLICTING  NARRATIVES  98 

continually  striving  to  persuade  his  readers  that  the  late 
King  never  even  contemplated  invoking  the  aid  of  the 
Irish  rebels.     On  the  other  side  Temple,  Borlase  and  Rush- 
worth,  in  a  spirit  of  honest  bigotry,  give  every  possible 
prominence  to  the  1641  atrocities,  but  make  no  attempt 
to  incriminate  Charles  I  in  the  matter.      Reid,  who,  as 
an  historian,  is  possibly  ahead  of  all  those  above  named, 
was  a  Parliamentarian  by  conviction,  but  was  saved  from 
undue  partisanship  by  his  reverence  for  historical  accuracy. 
The  party  feuds  of  the  seventeenth  century,  and  their  re- 
flection in  the  British  chronicles  of  the  time,  offer  to  modern 
historians  a  wide  and  varied  field  from  which  to  select 
the  shade  of  colour  likely  to  fit  the  taste  of  their  readers. 
Carte,  the  Royalist,  has  nothing  good  to  say  of  Coote 
or  Monro,  while  Reid  and  Rushworth  are  liberal  in  their 
criticisms    of   Ormonde.     From   these    purely    party   re- 
criminations it  is  not  difficult  for  a  skilful  writer  to  argue 
a  general  iniquity  in  all  those  who  were  opposed  to  the 
Irish  during  the  rising,  and  from  that  basis  to  draw  most 
misleading    conclusions.      The    worst    offender    in    this 
respect  is  Mr.  W.  E.  H.  Lecky,  who  exerts  all  his  ingenuity 
in  a  generous  effort  to  partly  discount  and  partly  excuse 
the  horrors  of  1641.     Mr.  Lecky,  however,  having  once 
set  out  on  this  mission,  goes  many  lengths  beyond  either 
Carte  or  Nalson,  and  at  a  distinct  angle  to  the  point  they 
aimed  at.     The  aim  of  Carte  and  Nalson  is  not  so  much  to 
whitewash  the  Irish  as  to  blacken  the  Parliamentarians, 
and    from   this    black    colouring — obviously   applied   for 
party   purposes — Lecky   tries   to   argue   a   corresponding 
whiteness  in  the  seventeenth-century  Irish.    It  is  a  generous 
effort,  and  it  testifies  to  a  kindly  heart,  but  it  is  not  his- 
torical ;    and  it  is  quite  evident  that  Lecky  himself  is 
at  times  conscious  of  this  flaw,  for  he  becomes  very  visibly 
torn  between  a  desire  for  truth  on  the  one  hand  and 
his  kindly  inclinations  on  the  other.     The  latter,  as  may 
be  supposed,  prove  throughout  the  stronger  motive,  at 
times  lowering  the  writer  from  the  level  of  an  historian  to 
that  of  an  eager  counsel  for  the  defence,  putting  forward 
every  extenuating  circumstance  that  his  nimble  mind  can 
seize  upon. 

Carte  and  Nalson  were  simply  in  the  position  of  avowed 
partisans,  having  to  justify  the  alliance  of  their  party 
with  those,  who,  a  short  time  before,  had  been  guilty  of 


94  HISTORICAL  REVIEW  [CHAP,  i 

some  very  barbarous  outrages.  This  end  is  achieved,  or 
at  all  events  attempted,  by  the  double-edged  process  of 
either  ignoring  or  explaining  away  the  original  massacres, 
which  were  the  starting-point  of  all  the  horrors  which 
followed,  and  by  accentuating  the  reprisals  of  the  Parlia- 
mentarians when  they  got  the  upper  hand.  Party  politics 
in  fact — not  for  the  first  or  the  last  time — proved,  with 
those  two,  a  stronger  influence  than  patriotism  ;  and — 
not  for  the  first  or  last  time — an  English  political  party 
which  needed  the  support  of  its  country's  enemies,  tried, 
for  the  sake  of  decency,  to  paint  its  unnatural  allies  in  as 
favourable  a  light  as  possible.  If  the  Irish  had  massacred 
and  tortured  to  the  extent  insisted  upon  by  Temple, 
Borlase,  Rushworth  and  other  historians  of  the  parlia- 
mentary party,  the  royalist  confederacy  with  these  whole- 
sale butchers  of  their  fellow-countrymen  would  have  been 
a  very  indefensible  act.  According  to  Temple,  the  rebellion 
was  "  so  execrable  in  itself,  so  odious  to  God,  and  the 
whole  world,  as  no  age,  no  kingdom,  no  people  can  parallel 
the  horrid  cruelties  and  abominable  murders  that  have 
been  without  number,  as  well  as  without  mercy,  com- 
mitted upon  the  British  inhabitants  throughout  the  land, 
of  what  sex  or  age  soever  they  were."  *  The  royalist 
writers  do  not  actually  repudiate  this  indictment,  but 
they  avoid  facing  it  by  the  introduction  of  side-issues  of 
a  purely  political  nature.  They  are,  therefore,  never  able 
to  escape  from  the  position  of  party  apologists  explaining 
inconvenient  incidents  away,  a  position  which  necessarily 
detracts  from  their  value  as  impartial  registrars  of  facts. 

In  dealing  with  so  controversial  a  subject  as  the  1641 
rising  perfect  impartiality  is  not  easy  of  attainment, 
and — when  attained — is  not  readily  recognised  as  such 
by  those  against  whom  judgment  is  given.  Where  fiction 
has  for  many  generations  held  sway,  truth  is  apt  to  take 
on  a  libellous  aspect,  and  the  writer  who  pursues  it  becomes 
an  object  of  execration.  To  few  does  it  seem  to  occur 
that  truth  may  be  sought  out  for  its  own  sake  and  not  as 
a  means  of  wounding. 

The  aim  of  the  following  chapters  is  to  furnish  a  simple 
narrative  of  events  as  they  actually  occurred,  or,  at  any 
rate,  in  as  close  a  relation  to  the  actual  facts  as  is  possible 
from  a  study  of  available  evidence. 

1  Temple's  Irish  Rebellion,  p.  28. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  REBELLION 

"  THE  cause  of  the  rebellion,"  said  Sir  William  Petty, 
"  was  the  desire  of  the  Romanists  to  recover  the  Church 
Revenues,  worth  about  £110,000  per  annum,  and  of  the 
common  Irish  to  get  back  all  the  Englishmen's  estates, 
and  of  the  ten  or  twelve  grandees  to  get  the  empire  of 
the  whole."  Carte  is  more  definite  and  less  diffuse. 
According  to  him,  the  sole  cause  of  the  rising  was  "  the 
mortal  hatred  which  the  Irish  in  general,  and  the  gentry 
in  particular,  who  had  been  dispossessed  of  their  estates 
by  the  Plantation,  bore  to  the  English  nation."  That 
in  these  few  words  of  Carte's  lies  the  true  explanation 
of  the  rising  cannot  be  doubted  by  any  one  who  examines 
the  voluminous  evidence  on  the  subject  with  honest 
care.  The  two  other  reasons  assigned  by  Petty,  though 
undoubted  factors  in  the  case,  were  very  subsidiary  to 
the  main  issues.  Nothing  in  the  social,  agrarian  or 
religious  conditions  of  the  country  justified  a  sanguinary 
upheaval  of  the  existing  order  of  things.  Ireland,  in  the 
year  1641,  was  in  a  state  of  unprecedented  prosperity. 
As  to  that  point  we  have  incontestable  evidence  from 
both  sides.  Clarendon's  opinion  might  be  put  aside  as 
biassed,  were  it  not  endorsed  by  Irish  writers  of  the  same 
period.  Clarendon  says  :  "  The  Irish  nation  was  possessed 
of  the  most  blessed  and  happy  conditions,  before  their 
own  unskilful  rage  and  fury  brought  this  war  upon  them  ; 
and  they  have  since  had  leisure  enough  thoroughly  to 
consider  and  value  the  wonderful  plenty,  peace  and  security 
which  they  enjoyed  till  the  year  1641,  when  they  wantonly 
and  disdainfully  flung  those  blessings  from  them.  They 
were  arrived  to  a  mighty  increase  of  traffic,  improvement 
of  land,  erection  of  buildings  and  whatever  else  might 
be  profitable  or  pleasant  to  any  people  ;  and  these  desir- 
able advantages  and  ornaments  the  policy  and  industry 
of  that  nation  was  utterly  unacquainted  with,  till  they 
were  brought  to  them  by  the  skill  and  labour  of  the  English, 
8  95 


96  THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  REBELLION    [CHAP,  n 

planting  and  living  charitably,  friendly  and  hospitably 
among  them.  Taxes  and  tillages,  and  other  contributions, 
were  things  hardly  known  to  them  so  much  as  by  their 
names.  Whatever  their  lands,  labour  or  industry  pro- 
duced was  their  own  ;  and  they  were  not  only  free  from 
the  fear  of  having  it  taken  from  them  by  the  King,  upon 
any  pretence  whatsoever  without  their  consent,  but  also 
so  secured  against  thieves  and  robbers  by  the  execution 
of  good  laws,  that  men  might  and  did  travel  over  all 
parts  of  the  kingdom  with  considerable  sums  of  money 
unguarded  and  unconcealed.'* 

The  pleasing  picture  here  presented  is  repeated  in 
rather  different  words  by  the  author  of  the  Irish  contem- 
porary record  known  as  The  Aphorismical  Discovery.  This 
chronicle  of  the  rebellion,  of  the  events  which  led  up  to 
it,  and  of  the  war  which  succeeded  it,  was  written  by 
an  Irish  priest,  who  acted  in  the  capacity  of  private  se- 
cretary to  Owen  Roe.  Of  the  pre-war  condition  of  Ireland 
this  chronicler  writes  :  "  In  the  month  of  October  1641 
the  kingdom  of  Ireland  stood  in  fairer  terms  of  prosperity 
than  ever  it  had  done  these  500  years  past;  but,"  he  adds 
gloomily,  "  commanded  by  foreigners,  and  the  majesty 
of  religion  eclipsed."  * 

That  the  country  since  the  Plantation  had  blossomed 
out  into  an  undreamt-of  prosperity  is  beyond  question. 
The  Customs'  rates  had  nearly  trebled  ;  the  linen  industry 
had  been  given  a  tremendous  impetus  ;  new  industries 
were  everywhere  being  started  ;  the  food  production  of 
the  province  was  vastly  increased  ;  the  breed  of  cattle 
and  horses  improved.  All  this  is  incontestable,  and  yet, 
none  the  less,  it  is  certain  that,  below  this  superficial 
prosperity,  there  was  an  under-stratum  of  considerable 
poverty.  The  natives,  for  the  most  part,  had  been  thrown 
back  on  the  poorer  lands.  The  reclamation  of  such  lands 
appeared  to  them  a  hopeless  and  unprofitable  undertaking, 
and  one  which  was  not  only  at  variance  with  their  traditional 
methods  of  living,  but  which  was  actually  beyond  the 
reach  of  their  agricultural  skill.  Even  where  the  native 
grandees  had  been  allotted  profitable  lands,  they  made 
little  attempt  to  imitate  the  agricultural  methods  of  the 
colonists,  but  clung  tenaciously  to  the  old  hand-to-mouth 
mode  of  living  to  which  they  had  been  accustomed. 

1  See  GUbert's  Contemporary  History. 


1641]  CAUSES   OF  DISCONTENT  97 

Though  freed  from  the  exactions  of  the  chiefs,  and  no 
longer  liable  to  have  the  soldiery  "  cessed  "  upon  them  as 
of  old,  they  had,  on  the  other  hand,  to  bear  the  double 
burden  of  tithes  payable  to  the  Episcopalian  as  well  as 
to  the  Roman  Catholic  clergy.  All  these  tithes  were  paid 
in  kind,  but  we  have  Strafford's  word  for  it  that  the  double 
strain  left  them  very  poor.  It  would  be  only  natural 
that  the  entire  odium  of  these  double  exactions  should 
fall  on  the  shoulders  of  the  English  clergy  and  of  the 
system  which  put  them  there  ;  nor  is  it  to  be  conceived 
that  the  Roman  Catholic  priests  would  see  the  moiety  of 
their  customary  dues  passing  into  the  hands  of  strangers 
without  striving,  by  every  means  within  their  power,  to 
lay  the  seeds  of  a  revolt  against  such  a  division.  Fed  by 
the  insidious  whisperings  of  the  priests  and  friars,  such 
seeds  germinated  readily  enough  among  an  ignorant  and 
credulous  peasantry.  It  was,  to  a  great  extent,  an  arti- 
ficially produced  growth,  but  none  the  less  it  flourished, 
as  such  growths  have  a  way  of  flourishing.  Higher  up  in 
the  social  scale,  however,  were  all  the  elements  of  a  dis- 
content which  needed  no  such  artificial  stimulus. 

Sir  Phelim  O'Neil,  his  brother  Tirlough  Oge,  Connor 
Maguire,  Lord  of  Enniskillen,  his  brother  Rory,  the  Earl 
of  Antrim,  and  Sir  Con  Magennis  were  all  heavily  in  debt, 
brooding  over  the  olden  days  when  they  could  levy  rates 
on  the  country  without  stint,  and  attributing  all  their 
financial  difficulties  to  English  rule  instead  of  to  their  own 
unbridled  extravagance.  Sir  Phelim,  at  the  time  of  the  out- 
break, was  thirty -five  years  of  age ;  he,  as  well  as  his  brother 
Tirlough  Oge,  had  been  educated  in  England,  and  at  one 
time  had  professed  the  Protestant  faith.  According  to 
Leland,  he  was  "  of  a  mean  understanding  and  a  sensual 
and  brutal  temper.  He  took  possession  of  his  estates 
before  he  had  acquired  judgment  or  discretion  to  conduct 
himself,  and  in  consequence  was  soon  involved  in  all  the 
difficulties  arising  from  a  licentious  and  dissipated  life.  .  .  . 
He  entertained  his  imagination  with  the  prospect  of 
exchanging  his  present  indigence  and  inferiority  for  the 
vast  domains  and  princely  power  annexed  to  the  title  in 
old  times."  l  The  last  paragraph  has  reference,  of  course, 
to  the  unique  position  in  Ulster  of  Sir  Phelim's  great- 
great-grandfather,  Shane  O'Neil.  Had  the  custom  of 

*  Leland,  vol.  iii.  p.  99. 


98  THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  REBELLION  [CHAP,  n 

primogeniture  been  the  custom  in  vogue  among  the  Irish, 
Sir  Phelim  could  legitimately  have  claimed  that  these 
possessions  should  have  descended  to  him,  but  the  fact 
that — owing  to  the  tanistry  system — the  succession  had 
been  usurped  by  no  less  than  two  distinct  collateral 
branches  since  Shane's  day,  disposed  finally  of  any  claims 
Phelim  might  otherwise  have  had.  Shane  O'NeiPs  dynasty 
had  died  with  him.  Tirlough  Luineach  had  been  elected 
in  his  place,  and,  during  his  reign,  Tyrone  had  crushed  the 
life  out  of  the  sons  of  Shane.  One  he  hanged,  and  four 
others  he  kept  as  permanent  prisoners.  Sir  Phelim, 
however,  lacked  the  judicial  sense  to  realise  that  his 
ancestral  estates  had  been  wrested  from  him,  not  by  any 
encroachments  of  the  English,  but  by  the  piratical  greed 
of  his  own  kindred.  Still  less  had  he  the  generosity  to 
admit  that — but  for  the  friendly  interference  of  the  English 
— he  would  have  been  left  with  nothing  at  all.  This, 
however,  was  the  literal  truth.  To  such  beggary  had 
Tyrone  reduced  the  sons  of  Shane  that,  in  the  end,  the 
only  means  of  subsistence  of  the  three  survivors  (Henry 
Con  and  Tirlough)  was  a  daily  allowance  of  4s.  from  the 
English  Government.1  It  is  also  worthy  of  observation 
that,  although  Sir  Phelim  found  it  convenient  to  fasten 
the  blame  for  his  misfortunes  on  to  the  English,  Sir  Phelim's 
great-grandfather,  Henry  McShane,  had  been  under  no 
such  illusions  as  to  the  cause  of  his  troubles.  "  The 
Earl  of  Tyrone,"  he  wrote  to  Salisbury  on  April  24,  1606, 
"  has  dispossessed  me  of  all  my  lands."  To  this  landless 
and  penniless  outcast,  and  to  his  kinsmen,  the  English 
Government  came  in  the  guise  of  a  saviour.  When 
Tyrone  fled  the  country  in  1607,  Henry  McShane  was 
given  2,000  acres  of  profitable  land  in  Armagh,  and  his 
brother  Con  1,500  acres  in  Fermanagh.  The  hope  of  the 
Government,  however,  was  in  Henry  McShane's  son, 
known  as  Sir  Henry  Oge  of  Portnelligan,  and  to  him  very 
considerable  grants  were  made.  He  was  originally  assigned 
2,000  acres  at  Kinard  and  2,000  acres  across  the  river 
in  Oneilland,*  but  he  had  ultimately  increased  his  holding 
in  Armagh  to  4,900  acres,  apparently  by  piratical  en- 
croachments in  the  barony  of  Tiranny,  with  the  con- 
nivance, or  at  any  rate  without  the  interference,  of  the 

1  Col.  State  Papers,  James,    97. 

•  Sir  John  Davies  to  Saliubury,  August  6,  1608. 


1641]  SIR  PHELIM  O'NEIL  99 

Government.1  In  considering  these  figures,  it  must  be  kept 
in  mind  that  only  "  profitable  "  land  was  reckoned,  and 
that  the  actual  acreage  acquired  was  very  much  greater. 

Henry  Oge  was  killed  in  Donegal  very  shortly  after  he 
had  received  this  grant.  His  eldest  son,  Tirlough,  was, 
at  the  same  time,  so  badly  wounded  that  he  survived  his 
father  but  a  very  short  time.  According  to  the  law  of 
primogeniture,  which  it  was  Chichester's  aim  to  establish, 
the  property  should  then  have  passed  to  Tirlough's  son 
Phelim,  who  was  at  that  time  only  two  years  of  age.  To 
Chichester,  however,  it  appeared  most  undesirable  to 
vest  such  large  estates  in  an  infant,  and  he  accordingly 
recommended  the  King  to  divide  Henry  Oge's  lands  up 
among  his  other  sons,  leaving  a  reasonable  share  only  for 
Phelim  to  inherit  when  he  came  of  age.8  This  was  done. 
Robert  Hovedon  married  Tirlough's  widow,  and  undertook 
the  charge  of  young  Phelim.  When  Phelim  grew  up  he 
became  very  dissatisfied  with  an  arrangement  which  he 
considered  to  be  an  injustice  to  himself  and  a  violation 
of  the  principle  of  primogeniture,  and,  on  these  grounds, 
he  made  an  application  to  Charles  I  for  the  restitution 
of  all  the  lands  which  had  been  granted  to  his  grandfather. 
The  application  was  favourably  considered  and  eventually 
granted.*  Phelim's  extravagance,  however,  was  such  that 
even  the  property  which  he  thus  regained  failed  to  meet  his 
expenses,  and  at  the  time  of  the  outbreak  it  was  very 
heavily  mortgaged. 

The  case  of  Lord  Maguire  was  very  similar  in  many 
respects  to  that  of  Sir  Phelim,  as  he  too  owed  everything 
he  possessed  in  the  way  of  land  to  the  intervention  of  the 
English.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  Lord  Maguire,  his  brother 
Rory  and  Sir  Phelim  were  among  the  chief  instigators  of 
the  rebellion,  and  in  view  of  the  further  fact  that  two  out 
of  the  three  were  conspicuously  brutal  to  the  British 
within  their  power,  there  is  a  certain  instruction  in  con- 
sidering the  case  of  the  Maguires. 

Lord  Maguire  was  twenty-six  years  of  age  at  the  date 
of  the  rising,  and — according  to  Leland — "  a  youth  of 
mean  understanding  and  of  a  licentious  and  expensive 
life,  already  overwhelmed  with  debts,"4  For  all  his  pro- 

1  Earl  of  Tyrone's  Articles,  Cal.  State  Papers,  James,  p.  502. 

a  See  Project  for  Undertakers  in  Walter  Harris's  Hibernica. 

3  Ferdinando  Warner,  vol.  i.  p.  29.  *  Leland,  vol.  ii.  p.  95. 


100  THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  REBELLION  [CHAP,  n 

nounced  Anglophobia,  he — like  Sir  Phelim — owed  every- 
thing to  the  English.  His  grandfather,  Connor  Roe 
Maguire,  had  been  dispossessed  of  all  his  estates  in  Fer- 
managh by  his  illegitimate  brother,  Hugh.  The  English 
Government  had  taken  up  the  case  of  Connor  Roe,  and, 
after  Hugh  had  been  killed  and  his  younger  brother 
Cuconnaught  had  fled  the  country  with  Tyrone,  Connor 
Roe  was  established  in  possession  of  the  baronies  of 
Magherastephana,  Clankelly,  Knocknimy  and  Tirkennedy. 
The  two  last  named  were  reckoned  as  half  baronies,  a 
circumstance  which  has  given  rise  to  some  confusion  as 
to  whether  Connor  Roe  originally  had  three  or  four  baronies. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  they  were  four  in  number,  but  were 
reckoned  as  three.  Clankelly,  Knocknimy  and  Tir- 
kennedy were  afterwards  relinquished  to  the  Crown  by 
Connor  Roe,  in  consideration  of  an  annuity  of  £200  a  year 
and  £50  a  year  to  his  son  Brian  after  his  death.1  He 
retained  the  entire  barony  of  Magherastephana,  which  was 
reckoned  at  the  time  to  contain  6,840  acres  of  profitable  land, 
and  for  which  he  paid  a  rent  to  the  Crown  of  £15  a  year. 

Connor  Roe  died  in  1627,  and,  after  his  death,  his  son 
Sir  Brian  was  created  Baron  Maguire  of  Enniskillen.  In 
the  following  year  Lord  Maguire  received  further  marks 
of  the  King's  favour,  for  he  was  authorised  to  raise  and 
command  a  troop  of  100  horse  at  the  King's  charge  ;  to 
collect  for  his  own  use  all  market  dues  in  the  barony  of 
Magherastephana,  and  to  enclose  as  a  park  any  2,000 
acres  he  might  select.1 

In  the  meanwhile,  Connor  Roe's  youngest  half-brother 
Brian  had  for  a  time,  with  the  approval  of  the  King, 
taken  over  the  four  baronies  left  vacant  by  the  flight  of 
Cuconnaught.*  These,  however,  the  exigencies  of  the 
Plantation  and  the  claims  of  other  branches  of  the  Maguire 
family  did  not  permit  of  his  retaining,  and  the  four  baronies 
were  split  up  and  redistributed. 

It  would  be  perhaps  too  much  to  expect  from  "  a  youth 
of  mean  understanding  "  that  he  should  exhibit  gratitude 
for  benefits  conferred  on  his  grandfather.  Lord  Maguire 
did  not.  Reasoning  by  the  same  warped  process  as  Sir 
Phelim,  he  found  grievance  in  the  fact  that  he  was  not 

1  Philadelphia  Papers,  vol.  iv.  p.  133. 

1  See  Appendix  to  Gilbert's  Contemporary  History. 

3  Col.  State  Papers,  James,  1610,   708,  and  1608,   97. 


1641]  LORD  MAGUIRE  101 

lord  over  the  entire  county,  as  his  great-grandfather 
Cuconnaught  had  been.  He  ignored  the  fact  that,  if  the 
British  had  stood  aside  and  let  matters  take  their  natural 
course,  Hugh  Maguire  would  have  usurped  the  county, 
and  Connor  Roe  and  his  descendant  Lord  Maguire  would 
have  been  landless.  It  is  probable  that  his  most  active 
cause  of  grievance  would  be  found  in  Connor  Roe's  aban- 
donment of  three  baronies  for  an  annuity  which  did  not 
descend  to  his  grandson,  the  blame  for  which  he  would 
naturally  lay  to  the  charge  of  the  British  and  not  of  his 
grandfather.  The  proposal  had  undoubtedly  originated 
with  Chichester,  and  there  can  be  no  question  but  that 
such  transactions  were  very  greatly  in  the  interests  of  a 
Government  with  a  heart  set  on  colonisation.  On  the 
other  hand,  Chichester  distinctly  stipulated  that  the  trans- 
action was  not  to  go  through  unless  Connor  Roe  was  a 
consenting  party.  Connor  Roe,  we  know,  did  consent, 
nor  need  we  feel  surprise  at  his  consenting :  £200  a  year 
in  1610  was  equivalent  to  a  very  much  larger  sum  to-day, 
and  it  is  conceivable  that  the  annuity  agreed  upon  more 
than  represented  the  rents  recoverable  from  the  relin- 
quished lands.  The  lands  were  very  poor.  Pynnar,  in 
his  Survey,  makes  special  reference  to  the  extreme  poverty 
of  Fermanagh  owing  to  the  grasping  exactions  of  the 
Maguires  extending  over  many  generations,  so  that  we 
may  rest  assured  that  Connor  Roe,  with  his  £200  a  year 
from  the  Government,  and  his  barony  of  Magherastephana, 
was  no  loser  by  his  bargain.  The  losers  by  the  composition 
he  made  would  be  the  descendants  that  came  after  him. 

Half  the  trouble  and  unrest  of  Ireland  has  always  been 
traceable  to  the  impoverishment  of  the  sons  of  affluent  but 
improvident  parents.  The  chief  curse  of  Ireland  for 
centuries  past  has  been  the  tendency  of  the  upper  classes 
to  live  entirely  for  their  own  lives  without  regard  to  those 
who  are  to  come  after.  This  disastrous  custom  is  beyond 
doubt  a  surviving  relic  of  the  old  tanistry  system,  which 
made  the  succession  to  estates  elective  instead  of  here- 
ditary. The  reckless  extravagance  of  the  man  in  pos- 
session naturally  followed  on  a  system  under  which  no 
man  knew  who  would  be  his  successor,  for  it  is  against 
reason  that  men  should  work  or  save  for  an  unknown  heir. 
Perrot  had  realised  the  truth  of  this  in  1588  when,  in 
commenting  on  the  tanistry  system  and  its  evils,  he  wrote 


102  THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  REBELLION  [CHAP,  n 

that  "  men  live  but  for  their  own  day,  when  they  cannot 
build  for  their  children."  Long  before  Perrot's  time, 
however,  Henry  VIII  had  stigmatised  the  tanistry  system 
as  being  the  root  of  all  Irish  evils.  Nor  was  he  far  wrong. 
It  bred  bitter  feuds  and  bloody  massacres  on  the  death  of 
every  county  magnate,  and  it  encouraged  the  successful 
candidate  to  live  at  the  highest  rate  of  expenditure  possible. 
The  inevitable  result  was  a  country  that  systematically 
went  from  bad  to  worse.  No  commercial  industries  were 
established  for  the  benefit  of  an  unknown  successor ;  no 
agricultural  improvements  encouraged  ;  no  social  reforms 
attempted.  Carpe  diem  was  the  motto  of  all  whom  the 
turn  of  the  wheel  of  fate  had  placed  in  temporary  pos- 
session of  this  world's  goods. 

After  many  centuries  of  a  life  so  ordered,  the  habit 
of  idleness  and  improvidence  became  ingrained  as  a  part 
of  the  national  character.  There  were  no  inducements 
in  other  directions,  nor  was  any  need  for  alteration  realised 
when  all  the  resulting  ills  could  be  conveniently  ascribed 
to  the  presence  of  the  English  in  the  land.  In  1641  the 
tanistry  system  was  no  longer  in  operation,  but  its  effects 
remained.  Men  continued  to  live  but  for  their  own  day. 
Connor  Roe,  as  we  have  seen,  sold  three  baronies  for  an 
annuity  of  £200  a  year.  To  Shane  McBrian,  Neil  Oge 
McHugh  and  Rory  Oge  McQuillin,  the  lure  of  ready  money 
had  proved  equally  irresistible.  All  of  these  had  exchanged 
their  estates  in  Antrim  for  cash,  leaving  their  children 
beggars.  The  money  was  spent,  and  nothing  left  behind 
but  a  legacy  of  bitter  discontent.  Farther  south  again, 
Con  McNeil  sold  22,000  acres  to  Hamilton  and  Mont- 
gomery in  consideration  of  £60  ready  cash  and  an  annuity 
of  £160,*  an  arrangement  which  left  his  son  Daniel  (a 
nephew  of  Owen  Roe's  and  a  man  of  some  distinction) 
a  beggar  at  the  outset  of  his  life.  Sir  Oghie  O'Hanlon, 
again,  sold  the  barony  of  Orior  for  £200  cash  and  an  annuity 
of  £80. • 

These  few  cases  are  merely  cited  as  illustrative  of  the 
way  in  which  the  evil  effects  of  the  tanistry  system  sur- 
vived even  after  the  custom  itself  had  been  superseded. 
Landed  proprietors  bled  their  estates  to  the  last  drop,  and 

i  Hamilton  MSS.  Laud  to  Wentworth,  January  16,  1635.  See  also 
petition  of  Daniel  O'Neil. 

1  Chichester  to  Salisbury,  October  27,  1608. 


1641]    EFFECTS  OF  THE  SPENDTHRIFT  HABIT       108 

their  heirs,  at  the  best,  succeeded  to  mortgaged  and  dimin- 
ished estates.  The  less  fortunate  found  themselves  quite 
penniless  and  landless.  From  among  these  penniless  and 
landless  sons  of  good  families  have  always  sprung  the 
main  elements  of  discontent  and  rebellion  in  Ireland.  In 
1637  Strafford  wrote  to  Mr.  Cox :  "  Nevertheless,  there  is 
a  nation  of  the  Irish,  the  whilst,  that  wander  abroad,  most 
of  them  criminous,  ail-lewdly  affected  people  that,  forth 
of  an  unjust  yet  habitual  hatred  to  the  English  Govern- 
ment, delight  to  have  it  believed,  and  themselves  pitied 
as  persecuted  forth  of  the  country,  and  ravished  of  their 
means  for  their  religion  only,  stirring  and  inciting  all  they 
can  to  blood  and  rebellion,  and  keeping  themselves  in 
countenance  by  taking  upon  them  to  be  grand  seigniors, 
and  boasting  and  entitling  themselves  to  great  dignities 
and  territories  whose  very  names  were  scarcely  heard  of 
by  their  indigent  parents."  l  The  last  sentence  is  cryptic, 
and  not  illustrative  of  the  particular  point  aimed  at. 
Strafford's  allusion  here  is  clearly  to  the  illegitimate  sons 
of  chiefs,  who  no  doubt  helped  to  swell  the  throng  of  needy 
and  mutinous  aristocrats.  The  chief  element  of  disturb- 
ance, however,  lay  in  the  recognised  sons  of  landed 
chiefs,  who  had  been  left  penniless  by  the  improvidence 
of  their  parents.  These,  for  the  most  part,  adopted 
brigandage  as  the  only  profession  worthy  of  their  high 
lineage.  In  the  seclusion  of  the  woods  and  mountain 
fastnesses,  from  which  they  made  their  descents  upon  the 
lowlands,  they  had  ample  opportunity  for  feeding  their 
discontent  on  a  retrospect  of  the  family  grandeur,  and 
their  hatred  of  England  on  a  vision  of  aliens  growing  fat 
on  their  ancestral  acres. 

As  the  spendthrift  habit — owing  to  the  futility  of 
thrift  and  industry — had  become  an  ingrained  part  of  the 
national  character,  so  also  had  the  habit  of  attributing 
all  misfortunes  to  the  presence  in  Ireland  of  the  British. 
From  the  axiom  that  all  ills  came  from  British  rule,  it  was 
but  a  short  step  to  the  corollary  that  everything  which 
originated  with  the  British  must  be  intrinsically  baneful. 
Where  such  jaundiced  views  are  hailed  as  tokens  of  patri- 
otism, it  is  clearly  hopeless  to  look  for  any  definite  ray  of 
reasonableness.  The  native  Irish,  with  minds  perverted 
by  the  sustained  falsehoods  of  their  instructors,  would 
i  Strafford  to  Cox,  May  15,  1637. 


104          THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  REBELLION    [CHAP,  n 

admit  no  debt  of  gratitude  to  the  British  under  any  cir- 
cumstances. Even  in  cases  where,  as  an  act  of  grace, 
estates  had  been  conferred  on  their  families,  there  was  no 
responsive  gratitude  in  the  recipient.  The  donors  were 
cursed  because  they  had  not  given  more.  Every  gift  be- 
came construed  into  an  injury  because  it  was  not  a  larger 
gift.  This  is  obviously  a  form  of  grievance  which,  from 
its  very  nature,  is  capable  of  being  nursed  to  eternity.  It 
is  insatiable,  because  it  always  keeps  ahead  of  the  benefit 
conferred.  The  alleged  insufficiency  of  the  gift  is  gradu- 
ally worked  up  into  an  injustice,  till,  in  the  end,  a  man's 
kindliest  benefactor  takes  the  shape  of  his  deadliest  enemy. 
To  return  to  the  dissipated  young  man  known  as  Lord 
Maguire,  we  find  him  heavily  in  debt  in  1641,  and  conjur- 
ing up  a  grievance  against  England  because  his  grandfather 
had  sold  a  large  part  of  his  estates  for  cash.  In  truth, 
however,  the  causes  of  the  discontent  of  Sir  Phelim,  the 
Maguires,  McMahon  and  Magennis  were  both  deeper  and 
more  genuine  than  those  that  they  waived  upon  the  sur- 
face. Their  real  grievance  lay  in  the  abolition  of  the  old 
Irish  feudal  system,  and  in  the  substitution  of  English 
forms  of  land  tenure,  and  of  legal  protection  for  the  weak. 
It  is  to  be  doubted  whether  they  wasted  any  thought 
over  the  abolition  of  the  tanistry  system,  for — as  the  men 
in  possession — this  had  little  interest  for  them.  It  was 
the  abolition  of  the  old  Irish  exactions  that  excited  their 
resentment  and  awakened  their  atavistic  tendencies. 
They  looked  around,  and  saw  the  surface  of  Ulster  flecked 
with  prosperous  men  of  another  race,  from  whom  they 
were  no  longer  at  liberty  to  exact  the  old  cessings,  cut- 
tings and  cosherings  with  which  to  make  good  the  de- 
ficiencies caused  by  their  extravagance.  In  the  good  old 
days,  to  the  restitution  of  which  they  looked  so  eagerly, 
no  Irish  chieftain  was  ever  in  debt,  for  he  simply  took 
what  he  wanted  from  his  serfs.  The  abominable  wicked- 
ness of  the  system  of  exactions  which  made  this  possible 
cannot  be  better  explained  than  in  the  words  of  Sir  John 
Davies,  the  Solicitor-General  for  Ireland  in  the  early  days 
of  the  seventeenth  century.  The  worst  of  the  old  exac- 
tions had  been  the  customs  of  coyne,  livery  and  bonnaght ; 
but,  as  these  only  came  into  operation  in  connection  with 
the  maintenance  of  the  standing  armies  which  the  chiefs 
in  esse  and  posse  were  forced  to  have  at  their  backs,  it  is 


1641]  THE   OLD   IRISH  EXACTIONS  105 

not  to  be  supposed  that  any  of  the  Ulster  magnates  thirsted 
for  their  revival.  For  the  other  old  customs,  however, 
these  extravagant  and  dissipated  men,  hampered  with 
debt,  must  have  longed  very  greedily,  for  therein  lay  an 
easy  road  out  of  all  their  difficulties.  Sir  John  Davies 
describes  these  customs  in  the  following  language  :  "  The 
Irish  exactions  extorted  by  the  chieftains  and  tanists,  by 
colour  of  their  barbarous  seigniory,  was  about  as  grievous 
a  burden  [as  coyne,  livery  and  bonnaght,  which  he  had  just 
dealt  with],  viz :  '  cosherings,'  which  were  visitations 
and  progresses  made  by  the  lord  and  his  followers  among 
his  tenants,  wherein  he  did  eat  them  (as  the  English  pro- 
verb is)  out  of  house  and  home.  '  Cessings  '  of  the  kerne 
and  his  family  of  horses  and  horseboys,  of  his  dogs  and 
dogboys  and  the  like  ;  and,  lastly,  *  cuttings,  tallages  and 
spendings,'  high  or  low  at  his  pleasure,  all  of  which  made 
the  lord  an  absolute  tyrant  and  the  tenant  a  very  slave  and 
villein,  and  in  one  respect  more  miserable  than  bond- 
slaves, for  commonly  the  bondslave  is  fed  by  his  lord,  but 
here  the  lord  is  fed  by  his  bondslave." 

Davies  next  explains  why  the  suppression  of  these  old 
Irish  exactions  was  so  hateful  to  the  upper  classes  in 
Ireland.  "  First,  the  common  people  are  taught  by  the 
Justice  of  Assize  that  they  are  free  subjects  to  the  King 
of  England  and  not  slaves  and  vassals  to  their  pretended 
lords ;  that  the  cuttings,  cessings  and  cosherings  and 
other  extortions  of  their  lords  are  unlawful,  and  that  they 
should  not  any  more  submit  themselves  thereunto,  since 
they  are  now  under  the  protection  of  so  just  and  mighty 
a  prince,  as  both  would  and  could  protect  them  from  all 
wrongs  and  oppression.  They  gave  a  willing  ear  unto 
these  lessons,  and  thereupon  the  greatness  and  power  of 
those  Irish  lords  over  the  people  suddenly  fell  and  van- 
ished, when  their  oppressions  and  extortions  were  taken 
away,  which  did  maintain  their  greatness." 

In  these  words  of  Sir  John  Davies  lies  the  explanation 
of  why  religion  was  ultimately  pressed  into  the  service  of 
the  revolt.  The  revolt  was  primarily  against  the  English 
innovations  which  had  emancipated  the  serfs.  It  is  not 
to  be  supposed  that  the  education  of  the  younger  genera- 
tion would  be  on  these  lines.  They  would,  on  the  con- 
trary, be  fed  with  golden  tales  of  the  glories  that  had  been 
under  the  great  Tyrone,  before  the  Ulster  Plantation  had 


106  THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  REBELLION    [CHAP,  n 

cast  a  blight  upon  the  land.  None  the  less  it  is  certain 
that  some  among  the  greybeards  would  shake  their  heads. 
A  bare  five-and-thirty  years  had  passed  since  the  feudal 
system  had  ceased  to  be  the  order  of  Government  in 
Ulster,  and  there  would  be  many  yet  living  to  whom  its 
hangings,  its  tortures,  its  droits  de  seigneurs  and  pitiless 
grinding  of  the  poor  would  still  be  a  very  dreadful  memory. 
There  is  no  evidence  as  to  the  extent  to  which  the  croak- 
ings  of  the  old  men  damped  the  ardour  of  the  younger 
generation,  but  that  Sir  Phelim's  revolt  did  not  go  of  its 
own  momentum,  with  the  free  swing  anticipated,  is  made 
quite  clear  by  the  belated  introduction  of  the  religious 
element  as  an  auxiliary  spur.  Carte  names  April  1642  as 
the  date  at  which  religion  was  introduced,  but  a  more 
modern  study  of  events  would  seem  to  place  it  quite  three 
months  earlier :  and  a  point  which  seems  equally  clear 
is  that  the  stimulus  of  religion  was  brought  into  play 
when  the  original  incentive  of  greed  had  begun  to  wane. 
By  the  end  of  1641  all  the  money  and  valuables  of  the 
British  colonists  had  passed  to  the  Irish,  either  by  direct 
seizure  or  by  transfer  under  torture.  We  know  that  the 
scramble  for  this  plunder  was  the  cause  of  bitter  dissen- 
sions and  divisions  among  those  whom  Sir  Phelim  aimed 
at  uniting  into  a  solid  body  against  the  aliens.  George 
Creichton,  a  Presbyterian  curate,  who  lived  as  a  prisoner 
for  many  months  among  the  rebels,  deposed  in  his  evi- 
dence before  the  commission  that  "  he  never  saw  such 
base  covetousness  as  did  show  itself  in  these  Irish  robbers, 
such  bitter  envyings  and  emulations,  such  oppositions  and 
divisions  and  evil  speaking  behind  the  backs  of  one  an- 
other." 1  There  was  no  promise  of  victory  in  conditions 
such  as  these.  Without  unity,  ultimate  disaster  was 
assured,  and  the  only  force  strong  enough  to  compel  that 
unity  was  religion.  Religion  had  throughout  been  pre- 
sent as  a  supporting  factor  in  the  rising,  but  not  as  the 
prime  incentive,  nor  had  this  so  far  been  possible.  The 
resolution  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  at  Multifarnham 
in  Co.  Meath  had  been  in  favour  of  a  moderate  and 
humane  revolution.  In  the  success  of  such  a  revolution 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  had  its  obvious  interests.  Its 
revenues,  estimated  by  Petty  at  £110,000  per  annum, 
had  been  diverted  to  clerics  of  a  rival  order,  and  the 

1  Deposition  of  the  Rev.  George  Creichton. 


1641]  THE  MULTIFARNHAM  EDICT  107 

restitution  of  these  was  a  prize  worthy  of  effort.  A  tem- 
perate religion,  however,  has  obviously  little  value  as  a 
call  to  bloodshed.  For  Sir  Phelim's  purpose  incendiary 
fanaticism  was  called  for,  and  for  such  he  would  not  have 
far  to  seek  in  Ireland.  The  evidence,  however,  is  to  the 
effect  that  the  better-class  priests,  and  the  ruling  bodies 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  were  steadfastly  opposed 
to  the  horrible  barbarities  associated  with  the  rising.  This 
is  not  only  strongly  indicated  by  the  evidence  of  the 
depositions,  but  is  established  as  a  fact  by  the  resolutions 
passed  by  the  General  Assembly  of  Roman  Catholic 
Bishops  at  Kilkenny  on  May  10,  11  and  13,  1642.1 

Leland  says  :  "It  appears  with  the  utmost  clearness, 
which  can  reasonably  be  acquired  in  historical  evidence, 
that  the  design  was  nothing  less  important  than  the  utter 
subversion  of  all  the  late  establishments  of  property,  restor- 
ing the  Irish  to  all  that  they  had  lost  by  the  rebellion  of 
their  ancestors,  or  the  decisions  of  the  law,  and  procuring 
an  establishment  for  the  Roman  Catholic  religion,  with  aU 
the  splendour  and  affluence  of  its  hierarchy."  '.  All  this 
is  no  doubt  true.  It  would  have  been  remarkable  indeed 
if  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  had  not  aimed  at  the  re- 
establishment  of  its  ancient  greatness,  and  it  is  common 
ground  that  the  rising  was  organised  by  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  no  less  than  by  the  discontented  Irish 
aristocracy.  The  point  on  which  insistence  is  here  made 
is  as  to  the  disassociation  of  the  better-class  priests,  and 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  its  official  capacity, 
from  the  horrible  outrages  which  accompanied  the  rising. 
It  seems  tolerably  clear,  in  fact,  that  the  absence  of  any 
general  massacre  during  the  first  fortnight  of  the  rising 
was  due,  in  the  main,  to  the  resolution  in  favour  of  modera- 
tion passed  by  the  ecclesiastical  bodies  at  Multifarnham 
prior  to  the  outbreak. 

At  this  Convocation  there  were  the  usual  two  extreme 
parties.  The  more  moderate,  represented  by  the  Fran- 
ciscans and  their  adherents,  were  strongly  opposed  to  any 
massacre  ;  they  voted  in  favour  of  a  general  expulsion  of 
all  Protestants,  but  without  bloodshed.  The  fanatical 
firebrands,  on  the  other  hand,  were  for  total  extermina- 
tion. In  the  end  a  compromise  was  arrived  at,  and  it 
was  agreed  that  all  should  be  despoiled,  but  that  only 
1  See  p.  221.  •  Leland,  p.  104. 


108          THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  REBELLION   [CHAP,  n 

particularly  obnoxious  persons,  or  those  who  resisted 
spoliation,  should  be  killed  in  the  first  instance.1  It  is, 
however,  sufficiently  obvious  that,  in  spite  of  the  Multi- 
farnham  decision,  the  views  of  the  extreme  party  would 
remain  unaltered,  and  it  would  be  from  among  the  mem- 
bers of  this  party  that  Sir  Phelim  would  find  the  material 
to  back  him  in  his  spread  of  Anglophobia.  In  the  first 
days  of  the  rising  it  was  hoped  that,  by  the  seizure  of  all 
the  castles  and  walled  cities,  the  Irish  would  make  them- 
selves such  complete  masters  of  the  situation  that  the 
naked  and  homeless  British  would  gradually  die  off  from 
stress  of  weather  and  starvation,  and  that  the  objects  of 
the  rising  would  thus  be  achieved  without  going  counter 
to  the  letter  of  the  Multifarnham  resolution.  In  further- 
ance of  this  plan,  orders  were  issued  from  headquarters 
that  no  one  was  to  succour  or  shelter  any  of  the  British 
under  pain  of  death. 

The  Lords  Justices  and  Council,  in  writing  to  the  Lord- 
Lieutenant  in  England  on  December  14,  1641,  made  the 
following  statement :  "  The  rebels  have  proclaimed  that 
if  any  Irishman  shall  harbour  or  relieve  any  English  that 
be  suffered  to  escape  them  with  his  life,  that  it  shall  be 
penal  even  to  death  to  such  Irish,  and  so  they  shall  be 
sure — even  though  they  put  not  those  English  to  the  sword 
— yet  they  do  as  certainly  and  more  cruelly  cut  them  off 
that  way  than  if  they  had  done  it  by  the  sword.  .  .  .  And 
they  profess  that  they  will  never  give  over  until  they 
leave  not  any  seed  of  an  Englishman  in  Ireland."  * 

If  this  scheme  had  been  carried  out  as  planned  it  is 
clear  that  Ulster  would  in  a  very  short  time  have  been 
freed  of  the  British  element  without  any  extensive  blood- 
shed. The  simultaneous  seizure  of  all  strong  places, 
however,  missed  fire.  The  naked  refugees,  instead  of 
starving  on  the  mountains,  found  their  way  to  Dublin, 
Derry,  Coleraine,  Drogheda  and  Carrickfergus,  and  to  a 
number  of  private  Castles  such  as  Enniskillen,  Keilagh, 
Augher  and  Ballintoy,  from  which  they  successfully  defied 
all  the  attempts  of  the  Irish  to  dislodge  them,  and  from 
which  they  would  even  sally  forth  and  inflict  severe 
defeats  on  the  investing  forces.  Under  this  unexpected 
development,  hunger  and  cold — though  claiming  a  heavy 

1  Hickson's  Ireland  in  the  Seventeenth  Century. 

2  Lords  Justices  to  Lord-Lieutenant,  December  14,  1641. 


1641]  THE  SYSTEM  OF  MUTILATION  109 

toll  of  victims — proved  by  no  means  the  engine  of  uni- 
versal death  that  had  been  anticipated. 

With  the  failure  of  hunger  and  cold  as  instruments  of 
extirpation,  an  attempt  was  made  to  produce  the  same 
results  by  other  means,  and  yet  to  keep  within  the  letter 
of  the  Multifarnham  edict.  There  can  be  very  little 
doubt  that  the  practice  of  mutilating  and  wounding,  but 
not  killing  outright,  was  suggested  to  the  ignorant  minds 
of  the  natives  by  the  belief  that,  in  this  way,  the  desired 
end  would  be  attained  without  a  direct  violation  of  the 
injunctions  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  A  number  of 
the  depositions  testify  to  the  way  in  which  the  Irish,  in 
the  earlier  stages  of  the  massacre,  would  mortally  wound 
their  victims  and  then  fling  them  into  ditches  to  die,  no 
doubt  under  the  belief  that  this  was  not  killing  within  the 
meaning  of  the  Multifarnham  edict.  Elizabeth  Price 
deposed  in  her  evidence  "  that  a  great  number  of  poor 
Protestants,  especially  of  women  and  children,  they 
pricked  and  stabbed  with  their  skeans,  pitchforks  and 
swords,  and  would  slash,  mangle  and  cut  them  in  their 
heads,  breasts,  faces,  arms  and  other  parts  of  their  bodies, 
but  not  kill  them  outright,  but  leave  them  wallowing  in 
their  blood  to  languish,  starve  and  pine  to  death,  of  which 
she  hath  in  many  particulars  been  an  eye-witness."  *  We 
know  that  Sir  Phelim  himself  expostulated  with  Manus 
O'Cahan  for  adopting  these  roundabout  methods,  but  the 
lay  mind  was  not  sufficiently  authoritative  on  such  a 
subject.  A  man  named  Nathaniel  Higginson,  in  his 
deposition,  swore  that  this  system  of  mortally  wounding, 
but  not  killing  outright,  was  recommended  to  the  Irish  by 
their  priests  as  an  effective  way  of  working  their  will,  and 
yet  of  keeping  within  the  Multifarnham  edict.8  Later  on, 
however,  this  plan  proved  too  slow,  and  the  services  of 
the  more  fanatical  priests  had  to  be  called  in  to  give  a 
religious  sanction  to  the  unrestrained  use  of  fire,  water 
and  sword. 

It  is  possible  that  Sir  Phelim  himself  may  have  been 
susceptible  to  religious  influences — more  especially  when 
they  fell  in  line  with  his  own  personal  interests ;  but  the 
real  force  that  drove  him  and  the  other  Ulster  chiefs  was 
Anglophobia — a  hatred  of  English  laws,  English  settled 

1  Deposition  of  Elizabeth  Price. 

1  Deposition  of  Nathaniel  Higginson. 


110  THE  CAUSES  OF  THE  REBELLION    [CHAP,  n 

estates,  and  English  restrictions  on  tyranny.  At  every 
step  of  the  rising  indications  crop  up  which  prove  that, 
among  the  upper-class  Irish,  the  feeling  at  the  back  of  the 
movement  was  racial  rather  than  religious.  The  Lords 
of  the  Pale,  English  by  descent,  Roman  Catholic  in  re- 
ligion, knew  this  only  too  well.  Their  co-operation  had 
been  sought  at  first  on  the  pretext  of  the  religious  tie 
which  bound  them  to  the  other  conspirators ;  but,  before 
the  rising  was  two  months  old,  they  were  left  with  few 
illusions  as  to  the  fate  which  awaited  them  when  the  Eng- 
lish and  Scotch  had  been  successively  disposed  of.  The 
neutrality  of  the  Scotch  was  courted  in  the  earlier  stages, 
but  with  an  absence  of  success  which  completely  upset 
the  original  scheme.  This  scheme  had  been  to  destroy 
in  rotation  the  English,  the  Scots,  and,  lastly,  the  Anglo- 
Irish  Roman  Catholic  Lords  of  the  Pale.1  To  this  end  the 
Scots  were,  at  first,  officially  exempted  from  molestation 
in  person  or  property,  in  the  fond  hope  that  they  would 
temporarily  stand  aside  and  look  on  until  the  English  had 
been  destroyed.  Luckily,  however,  the  Scots  were  not 
so  easily  fooled,  and — seeing  clearly  through  the  whole 
somewhat  transparent  trick — they  banded  together  from 
the  first  against  a  danger  which  they  recognised  as  being 
common  to  all  of  British  blood. 

That  all  except  such  as  were  of  pure  Irish  blood  were 
to  be  extirpated  under  the  scheme — irrespective  of  religion 
— is  established  from  a  variety  of  quarters.  The  goal 
aimed  at  was  that  of  a  pan-Irish  community,  from  which 
every  trace  of  British  influence  or  British  occupation  was 
to  be  expunged.  The  Pale  Lords  came  very  clearly 
within  this  category  (which  actually  included  cattle  and 
horses  of  English  breed),  and  well  they  knew  it,  but  they 
had  not  at  the  first  a  corresponding  knowledge  of  the 
extent  of  the  Anglophobe  mania  which  really  ruled  the 
situation.  They  were  for  a  time  deceived  into  the  belief 
that  the  movement  was  at  bottom  a  religious  movement. 
The  aim  of  the  conspirators  at  the  first  was  to  encourage 
this  belief  in  the  hopes  of  enlisting  the  sympathy  of  the 
Pale  Lords,  or,  at  any  rate,  of  buying  their  neutrality  till 
the  Protestant  British  had  been  disposed  of.  It  was  an 
obvious  ruse,  and  yet  one  which  placed  those  at  whom  it 
was  aimed  in  an  awkward  dilemma.  They  found  them- 
1  See  Lord  Maguire's  Confession. 


1641]         THE  ANGLO-IRISH  OF  THE  PALE  111 

selves  swayed  in  one  direction  by  ties  of  blood,  and  pos- 
sibly by  self-interest,  and  in  the  opposite  direction  by  the 
index  finger  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church.  They  knew 
that  they  were  trusted  by  neither  party.  In  the  earlier 
stages  it  is  fairly  evident  that  they  were  completely  hood- 
winked as  to  the  ultimate  aims  of  the  rising,  for  we  know 
that  they  made  strenuous  and  successful  efforts  to  pre- 
vent the  Irish  Roman  Catholic  Army  at  Carrickfergus  from 
leaving  for  Spain.  They  were,  however,  not  deceived  for 
long.  The  atrocious  cruelties  practised  by  the  rebels  dis- 
gusted many  of  them  and  alarmed  others.  The  Earl  of 
Antrim,  who,  though  not  a  Pale  Lord,  was  in  Dublin  at 
the  time  of  the  rising,  was  one  of  the  first  to  shake  himself 
clear  of  an  enterprise  with  which  he  had  originally  been 
in  sympathy,  on  the  grounds  that  "  he  could  see  nothing 
in  it  but  desolation  and  execrable  cruelty."  l  Others  in 
time  followed  his  lead,  and,  before  six  months  had  passed, 
the  Roman  Catholic  Pale  Lords  and  Sir  Phelim's  cut-throat 
bands  had  little  in  common.  By  this  time,  too,  the  atti- 
tude of  assumed  friendliness  on  the  grounds  of  religious 
conformity  was  appreciably  relaxed.  George  Creichton, 
whose  experience  among  the  rebels  has  already  been 
alluded  to,  made  the  following  interesting  declaration  on 
the  subject  of  the  relations  existing  between  the  Roman 
Catholic  English  of  the  Pale  and  the  native  Irish  insur- 
gents :  "  The  Anglo-Irish  of  the  Pale  and  the  native 
Irish,"  he  wrote,  "  as  this  deponent  believes,  hate  one 
another  as  much  as  any  two  nations  in  the  world.  .  .  . 
The  Pale  people  said  how  unfortunate  they  were  to  be 
joined  in  this  contest  to  such  people  as  have  ever  been 
their  enemies,  in  whom  there  was  neither  honesty  nor 
worth  ;  people  proud  without  anything  that  was  honour- 
able, covetous  without  industry,  and  bragging  without 
valour."  *  The  Irish,  on  the  other  hand,  if  we  can  take 
Sir  Phelim  as  their  mouthpiece,  had  nothing  good  to  say 
of  the  Pale  Lords,  whom,  according  to  another  witness, 
they  contemptuously  described  as  "those  ugly,  ill- 
favoured  English  churls  of  the  Pale."  •  Still  another  wit- 
ness, also  a  prisoner  in  Cavan,  bore  testimony  to  Sir 
Phelim's  sinister  intentions  (expressed  in  his  hearing)  to- 

1  Deposition  of  Dr.  Robert  Maxwell. 
*  Dep.  of  Rev.  George  Creichton. 
3  Dep.  of  Ambrose  Bedell. 


112  THE   CAUSES   OF  THE  REBELLION    [CHAP,  n 

wards  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  Pale,  as  soon  as  the 
opportunity  might  offer.  Ambrose  Bedell,  the  Bishop  of 
Kilmore's  son,  reported  the  Irish  leader  to  have  repeatedly 
uttered  the  following  threat  in  his  hearing  :  "  You  churls 
with  the  great  breeches,  do  you  think  that  if  we  were  rid 
of  the  other  English  we  would  spare  you  ?  No,  for  we 
would  cut  all  your  throats,  for  you  are  all  of  one  race 
with  them,  though  we  make  use  of  you  for  the  present."  1 

The  following  incident  during  the  Fermanagh  massacres 
tends  to  confirm  the  view  that  religious  conformity  had 
little  value  as  a  set-off  against  British  blood.  At  a  place 
called  Ganalley,  in  the  spring  of  1642,  between  forty  and 
fifty  English  and  Scottish  Protestants  were  promised  their 
lives  if  they  would  take  Mass.  This  they  did  and  asserted 
their  belief  in  the  tenets  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church. 
When  they  had  so  far  conformed  the  officiating  priest, 
"  one  Hugh  McO'Degan,  said  he  was  pleased  to  see  they 
were  all  now  in  the  good  faith,  and,  for  fear  they  should 
go  back,  he  cut  all  their  throats."  * 

Judge  Donellan,  in  his  address  to  Sir  Phelim  at  his  trial, 
attributed  all  the  atrocities  committed  to  the  inherited 
hatred  of  the  English.  He  reminded  the  prisoner  of  how 
Shane  O'Neil  had  built  a  fort,  which  he  named  Fagh  na 
Gall,  or  "  Hate  of  the  English,"  and  pointed  out  how, 
by  means  of  continued  suggestion,  this  traditional  hatred 
had  become  a  fixed  idea  among  the  Irish,  dominating  all 
other  feelings.  "  The  Irish  hatred  was  greater  against 
the  English  than  against  their  religion,"  says  Mr.  Clogy, 
another  of  the  Cavan  prisoners,  and,  as  an  illustration,  he 
cites  the  case  of  two  proselytized  British  Roman  Catholics 
named  Poole  and  Forsyth,  who  had  come  to  Kilmore 
during  the  previous  year,  and  who,  in  spite  of  their  re- 
ligion, were  both  despoiled  and  ill-treated.1 

1  Dep.  of  Michael  Harrison.  *  Dep.  of  Alexander  Creichton. 

3  Clogy's  Life  of 


CHAPTER    III 

APOLOGETIC    VIEW   OF   THE    RISING 

ALTHOUGH  the  real  causes  responsible  for  the  rising  of 
1641  are  transparently  clear  to  such  as  wish  to  see,  it 
none  the  less  becomes  necessary  to  examine  in  brief  the 
alleged  causes,  or  rather  excuses,  put  forward  by  Irish 
writers  in  extenuation  of  the  barbarities  committed,  more 
especially  as  the  Irish  point  of  view  has  been  in  part 
adopted  by  certain  English  historians.  The  Irish  claim 
is  that  the  rising  was  primarily  in  the  interests  of  King 
Charles  I,  and  secondly  a  defensive  move  which  aimed 
at  forestalling  the  design  of  the  Scottish  Covenanters  to 
exterminate  the  Irish  Roman  Catholics  by  means  of  an 
invading  army  "  with  sword  and  Bible  in  hand,"  under 
the  command  of  General  Leslie.1  Mr.  W.  E.  H.  Lecky, 
who  is  perhaps  the  most  prominent  apologist  of  the  Irish 
point  of  view,  does  not  go  so  far  as  to  support  the  first 
claim,  but  he  has  much  to  say  about  the  second.  The 
Irish  themselves  were  clever  enough  from  the  first  to 
make  the  cause  of  Charles  the  cloak  behind  which  they 
hid  their  real  objects.  "  They  admitted  that  they  thought 
it  lawful  to  pretend  what  they  could  in  advancement  of 
their  cause,  and  argued  that,  in  all  wars,  rumours  and  lies 
served  many  times  to  as  good  a  purpose  as  arms."  *  The 
Irish  leaders  had,  in  fact,  somehow  got  the  idea  firmly  rooted 
in  their  minds  that  no  acts,  however  bloody  and  violent, 
could  be  ranked  as  rebellion  so  long  as  they  were  perpe- 
trated under  the  nominal  banner  of  the  King.  They  had 
a  maxim  "  that  though  many  thousands  were  in  arms, 
and  exercising  the  violences  of  war,  yet,  if  they  professed 
not  to  rise  against  the  King,  it  was  no  rebellion."  * 

In  order,  therefore,  to  carry  out  their  designs  against 

1  Remonstrance  of  Irish  Roman  Catholics  (Nalson,  vol.  ii.  p.  565). 
1  Carte  to  Mr.  Chandler,  February  19,  1713  (Somers's  Tracts,  vol.  v.  p. 
647). 
*  Whitelocke,  Memorials,  p.  47. 

113 


114   APOLOGETIC    VIEW    OF    THE    RISING    [CHAP.  Hi 

the  British,  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  steer  clear  of  the 
stigma  of  rebellion,  the  leaders  took  the  precaution,  from 
the  start,  of  announcing  that  their  aim  was  the  loyal 
advancement  of  the  King's  interests.  Sir  Phelim  subse- 
quently admitted  the  fraud,  as  also  the  reason  for  making 
use  of  it ;  but  Irish  writers  still  keep  up  the  old  pretence. 

There  is  little  profit  in  flogging  a  dead  horse,  still  the 
following  points  in  this  connection  are  worthy  of  atten- 
tion :  1.  Charles  was  the  first  to  warn  the  Lords  Justices, 
through  Sir  Henry  Vane,  of  the  danger  of  an  Irish  rising  ; 
he  wrote  to  them  in  March  1641  announcing  that  he  had 
certain  information  from  Spain  that  a  rising  was  contem- 
plated and  urging  them  to  take  special  precautions.1  2. 
His  first  act,  on  learning  of  the  rising,  was  to  despatch  1,500 
arms  for  its  suppression.1  3.  Sir  Phelim,  on  the  scaffold, 
was  offered  his  life  if  he  could  prove  that  Charles  had 
authorised  the  rising.  He  was  obliged  to  admit  that  he 
could  not.  4.  Charles  himself  repudiated  any  sympathy 
with,  or  complicity  in,  the  rising  in  the  following  emphatic 
language  :  "  The  commotions  in  Ireland  were  so  sudden 
and  so  violent  that  it  was  hard  at  first  either  to  discern 
the  cause  or  apply  a  remedy  to  that  precipitate  rebellion. 
Indeed,  that  sea  of  blood  which  hath  there  been  cruelly 
and  barbarously  shed  is  enough  to  drown  any  man  in 
eternal  infamy  and  misery,  whom  God  shall  find  the 
malicious  author  and  instigator  of  its  effusion.  It  fell 
out,  as  a  most  unhappy  advantage  to  some  men's  malice 
against  me,  that,  when  they  had  impudence  enough  to  lay 
anything  to  my  charge,  this  bloody  opportunity  should  be 
offered  them  with  which  I  must  be  aspersed  ;  although 
there  was  nothing  which  could  be  more  abhorrent  to  me, 
being  so  full  of  sin  against  God,  disloyalty  to  myself  and 
destruction  to  my  subjects."  * 

The  above  facts,  unassailable  as  they  are,  do  not  in 
any  way  affect  the  attitude  taken  up  by  writers  such  as 
Curry  and  Prendagast,  who  gravely  represent  the  horrid 
acts  of  1641  and  1642  as  the  loyal  efforts  of  devoted  sub- 
jects in  the  interests  of  their  King.  The  following  quota- 
tion from  the  Aphorismical  Discovery  furnishes  a  typical 
illustration  of  the  illogical  lengths  to  which  Irish  writers 
are  prepared  to  go,  and  of  the  pitfalls  into  which  they 
occasionally  drop  in  straining  after  the  unattainable: 

*  Carte.  »  Rushworth.  a  Nalson,  vol.  ii.  p.  540. 


1641]     THE  REBELS'   PRETENCE   OF  LOYALTY      115 

"  Sir  Phelim  and  his  northern  people  demolished  all  the 
forts  and  castles  which  they  took  from  the  enemy  (i.e. 
the  British)  except  Charlemont,  nay,  his  very  own  house, 
so  that  the  enemy  had  very  few  garrisons  to  look  after  in 
the  north ;  but  still,  in  two  separate  bodies,  one  dependent 
on  Carrickfergus  and  another  from  the  Lagan  under  the 
command  of  Sir  Robert  Stewart,  followed  still  the  Royal- 
ists wherever  they  heard  of  their  being."  1  This  ludicrous 
attempt  to  identify  the  rebels  with  the  royalist  party  fight- 
ing for  King  Charles  crumbles  to  pieces  over  the  single  fact 
that  Sir  Robert  Stewart,  the  commander  of  the  Lagan 
Force  referred  to,  raised  his  regiment  by  special  royal 
commission  from  King  Charles  himself,  and  was  through- 
out such  a  consistent  and  uncompromising  Royalist  that 
he  was  finally  imprisoned  by  the  Parliament  for  utilising 
his  position  at  Culmore  Fort  in  order  to  harass  the  parlia- 
mentary army  in  Derry.8 

In  another  passage  the  same  writer  says  of  the  first 
two  days  of  the  rising  :  "  All  the  English  and  Scots  in 
those  several  counties  refusing  to  swear  allegiance  to  His 
Majesty,  being  only  desired  of  them,  adhered  unto  their 
brethren  the  Roundheads  and  went  in  troops  disarmed 
to  Dublin,  some  to  England."  l 

It  is  unfortunate  for  the  author  that  his  attempts  to 
identify  the  Ulster  colonists  with  the  Roundheads  is  offi- 
cially refuted  by  a  document  issued  by  the  Irish  rebels 
themselves,  at  a  time  when  they  were  straining  after  a  very 
different  point.  "  Were  not  all  the  Protestants  in  Ireland 
zealous  martialists  for  the  King  at  the  beginning  of  these 
wars  ?  "  says  the  Survey  of  Articles  of  the  Rejected 
Peace,  a  paper  which  was  drawn  up  in  the  form  of  a  Re- 
monstrance by  the  Irish  Roman  Catholics  in  1646. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  clever  idea  of  identify- 
ing the  1641  rebels  with  the  Royalists  and  their  unhappy 
victims  with  the  Roundheads  was  first  suggested  to  Irish 
writers  by  the  King's  several  attempts,  during  his  wars 
with  the  Parliament,  to  make  peace  with  the  Irish  on 
almost  any  terms  so  as  to  release  the  English  Royalist 
troops  in  Ireland  for  service  against  the  Parliament.  The 
King  also  undoubtedly  entertained  hopes,  even  to  the  last, 
of  enlisting  the  services  of  the  Irish  themselves  against 
his  foes  in  England. 

1  4phoriamical  Discovery.          2  Carte.         3  Aphorismical  Discover 


11G      APOLOGETIC  VIEW  OF  THE  RISING    [CHAP,  m 

He  knew  that  the  natural  hatred  of  the  Roman  Catholics 
towards  the  Puritans  was  equal  to,  if  not  greater  than,  his 
own.  Ireland  was  the  country  where  the  Roman  Catholic 
population  grew  thickest,  and  to  Ireland  the  royal  eye 
was  therefore  turned  as  to  the  most  favourable  recruiting 
ground  on  which  he  could  draw.  It  is  also  a  matter  of 
certainty  that,  in  his  desperate  eagerness  to  overcome  the 
Puritan  menace,  he  was  guilty  of  overtures  with  the  Irish 
Roman  Catholics  which  were  neither  dignified  nor  credit- 
able. The  Earl  of  Antrim  declared  that  the  King  had 
actually  issued  an  authority  to  him  and  to  Ormonde  to 
seize  Dublin  Castle,  and  to  hold  it  in  his  interests  against 
the  Parliament.1  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
Antrim  invented  this  statement,  nor  is  there  anything  in  the 
statement  itself  to  conflict  with  what  we  know  of  Charles's 
character,  or  of  the  expedients  to  which  he  was  ready  to 
stoop  in  the  hopes  of  propping  up  his  tottering  cause. 

It  can  easily  be  understood  how,  in  Ireland,  a  commission 
such  as  this  would  be  twisted  round  so  as  to  fit  in  with 
the  revolutionary  schemes  which  had  for  years  past 
been  hatching.  It  is  within  the  bounds  of  reasonable 
probability  that  the  knowledge  of  this  commission  having 
been  issued  to  Antrim  (which  Antrim — one  of  the  original 
conspirators — would  undoubtedly  have  communicated  to 
his  confederates)  had  first  suggested  to  Sir  Phelim  the 
idea  of  carrying  out  all  the  bloody  deeds  on  which  he  had 
set  his  mind  under  the  protective  aegis  of  a  Royal  Com- 
mission. It  needed  but  a  moderate  exercise  of  imagination 
to  extend  the  commission  which  the  King  had  given  to 
Antrim  in  respect  of  Dublin  Castle  to  every  other  strong- 
hold of  which  Sir  Phelim  wished  to  possess  himself.  With 
the  help  of  his  secretary,  Michael  Harrison,  he  forged  a 
commission  purporting  to  come  from  the  King,  cut  an 
imposing-looking  seal  off  one  of  the  documents  found  at 
Charlemont,  and  attached  it  to  the  forgery.*  The  fraud 
was  afterwards  admitted  by  Sir  Phelim  himself.  There 
would  be  no  need  to  go  beyond  this,  were  it  not  that — 
in  the  face  of  Sir  Phelim's  admission  of  fraud — writers 
such  as  J.  P.  Prendagast  still  try  (by  implication)  to 
maintain  the  fiction  that  the  Irish  rose  in  the  interests  of 
Charles  I.  The  fiction  is  shattered  by  one  single,  but 

1  See  Antrim  Information,  Appendix  49,  Cox's  Hibernia  Anglican^. 
8  garrison's  evidence  at  trial  of  Sir  Phelim, 


1641]  MR.   LECKY'S  WEAK  ARGUMENTS  117 

unassailable,  fact.  Charles  was  at  war  with  the  Scottish 
Covenanters.  If  the  Irish  rebels  had  directed  their 
energies  against  the  Scottish  Covenanters  in  Ulster,  some 
colour  might  have  been  given  to  the  pretence  that  they 
had  risen  in  the  interests  of  the  King  ;  but  they  did  not. 
The  Scottish  Covenanters  in  Ulster  were,  on  the  other  hand, 
exempted  by  public  proclamation  from  molestation  either 
in  person  or  property,  and  all  the  bloody  energies  of  the 
Irish,  during  the  first  week  of  the  rising,  were  directed 
against  the  English  Episcopalians. 

The  second  plea  (even  though  supported  by  Mr.  Lecky) 
falls   to  the   ground  for  very  similar  reasons.     Only  in 
Ireland  could  the  argument  be  advanced  that,   because 
the    Irish    feared  an  attack  from    the   Scots,  they  were 
justified   in   exempting   the    Scots  from  molestation,  but 
in   massacring  the  English.     Mr.  Lecky,  however,  makes 
heroic  efforts  to  convince  himself  that  the  argument,  in 
a  modified  form,  is  allowable.     He  replaces  the  idea  of  a 
Scottish  army,  with  a  Bible  in  one  hand  and  a  devastating 
sword   in  the   other,   by  the   more   abstract  and   plastic 
idea  of  the  extirpation  of  Catholicism  as  a  religion  by  the 
intrigues  of  the  Puritan  party.     His  words  are  :    "  It  is, 
I  believe,  perfectly  impossible  to  examine  with  any  candour 
the    evidence    on    the    subject    without    arriving    at    the 
conclusion  that  the  fear  of  the  extirpation  of  Catholicism 
by  the  Puritan  party  was  one  cause  of  the  rebellion  in 
Ireland."     One  cannot  doubt  that  these  words  express 
the   honest   convictions   of  the  writer,   but  they  fail  to 
explain  why — if  what  he  urges   is  correct — the  Puritan 
party  in  Ireland  represented  by  the  Ulster  Presbyterians 
were  addressed  as  "  our  loyal  friends  the  Scots,"  while 
the    non-Puritan    English    were    stripped,    robbed    and 
massacred.     And  yet  that  such  was  the  case  cannot  be 
contested.     The  exemption  of  the  Scots  was  short-lived. 
The   moment   it   became   apparent   that   they   were   not 
going  to  look  on  tamely  at  the  massacre  of  their  English 
neighbours,    but   were   arming   and   organising   forces   of 
resistance,  the  rancour   of  the   Irish  became  even   more 
bitter  against  the  Scots  than  against  the  English,  and  the 
two  nationalities  were  indiscriminately  massacred  where 
opportunity  offered. 

The  fact  that  the  Ulster  Scots  were  exempted  under 
the    original    proclamation    is    very    clearly    established. 


118       APOLOGETIC   VIEW   OF  THE   RISING   [CHAP,  m 

On  the  second  day  of  the  rising  Sir  Phelim  O'Neil  read 
out  in  the  market-place  at  Armagh  the  commission  which 
he  had  forged  in  the  name  of  the  King.  This  document 
purported  to  give  him  royal  authority  for  seizing  all 
forts  and  castles,  "  except  the  places,  persons  and  estates 
of  our  loyal  and  loving  subjects  the  Scots."  1 

Colonel  Audley  Mervyn,  afterwards  Speaker  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  and  one  of  the  royalist  leaders  of 
the  Lagan  Force,  who  went  through  the  whole  period 
of  the  rebellion  and  the  subsequent  war,  tells  us  that, 
"  in  the  infancy  of  the  rising,  the  rebels  made  open  pro- 
clamation that  no  Scot,  upon  pain  of  death,  should  be 
stirred  in  body,  goods  or  land,  and  that  they  should  to 
this  purpose  write  over  the  lintels  of  their  doors  that 
they  were  Scots,  and  so  destruction  might  pass  over 
their  families."8  George  Creichton,  a  Scottish  minister, 
and  one  who  tells  us  that  he  was  originally  spared  at  the 
instance  of  a  friar  named  Gregory  on  account  of  his 
nationality,  confirms  this  statement.  In  the  face  of  such 
evidence,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  any  responsible  historian 
can  support  the  fiction  that  the  rebellion  was  in  any 
part  forced  on  the  Irish  by  fears  of  extermination  at  the 
hands  of  the  Puritan  party.  This  idea,  in  its  apologetic 
aspect,  though  put  forward  as  one  of  many  excuses  at  the 
time,*  was  not  treated  seriously  till  many  years  later,  when 
it  was  unearthed  and  resuscitated  for  propaganda  purposes. 

No  better  evidence  on  the  subject  of  the  real  causes 
responsible  for  the  rising  can  be  looked  for  than  that 
•which  is  furnished  by  Lord  Maguire's  confession,  made  at 
a  time  when  he  had  nothing  to  gain  by  any  suppression 
or  distortion  of  facts.  His  story  is  that,  some  months 
before  the  outbreak,  Roger  Moore,  the  father  of  the 
scheme,  came  to  him,  "  and  began  to  particularise  the 
suffering  of  them  that  were  the  more  ancient  natives,  as 
were  the  Irish  [i.e.,  the  native  Irish].  How  that  in  several 
Plantations  they  were  all  put  out  of  their  ancestors' 
estates.  All  which  sufferings,  he  said,  did  beget  a  general 
discontent  over  the  whole  kingdom  in  both  [classes  of] 
the  natives,  to  wit  the  old  and  new  Irish.  And  that  if 
the  gentry  of  the  kingdom  were  disposed  to  free  them- 

1  Hickson's  Ireland  in  the  Seventeenth  Century. 

*  Relation  of  Audley  Mervyn. 

3  See  Remonstrance  of  Irish  Roman  Catholics, 


1641]  LORD   MAGUIRE'S   CONFESSION  119 

selves  furtherly  from  the  like  inconvenience,  and  get  good 
conditions  for  themselves  for  regaining  their  ancestors' 
estates  (or  at  least  a  good  part  thereof)  they  could  never 
desire  a  more  convenient  time  (the  distempers  of  Scotland 
being  then  on  foot),  and  did  ask  me  what  I  thought  of  it."  l 
Maguire  goes  on  to  say  that  Roger  Moore  told  him  he 
had  sounded  the  gentry  of  the  other  three  provinces  and 
had  found  them  in  sympathy.  "  Then  he  began  to  lay 
down  to  me  the  case  that  I  was  in  then,  overwhelmed 
in  debt,  the  smallness  of  my  estate,  the  greatness  of  the 
estates  my  ancestors  had,  and  how  I  should  be  sure  to 
get  it  again,  or  at  least  a  good  part  thereof.  And,  more- 
over, how  the  welfare  and  maintenance  of  the  Catholic 
religion,  which  he  said  undoubtedly  the  Parliament  now 
in  England  will  suppress,  doth  depend  on  it.  '  For,'  said 
he,  'it  is  to  be  feared,  and  so  much  I  hear  from  every 
understanding  man,  that  Parliament  intends  the  utter 
subversion  of  our  religion.'  " 

This  confession  of  Maguire 's  seems  to  leave  the  matter 
in  very  clear  shape.  The  main  cause  of  the  rising  was 
the  discontent  of  the  Irish  upper  classes  at  the  curtailment 
of  their  estates  and  power.  The  year  1641  was — after 
much  delay — chosen  for  the  effort,  because  the  King 
was  embroiled  in  difficulties  with  Scotland,  and  because 
of  the  presence  in  Ulster  of  6,000  trained  native  Irish 
soldiers  originally  destined  to  sail  for  Spain,  but  ultimately 
disbanded  and  left  in  Ulster.  The  eternal  religious 
element  was,  as  usual,  introduced  with  the  idea  of  con- 
solidating all  Irish  interests  under  a  common  banner. 
This  had  been  the  universal  practice  in  every  rising,  great 
or  small,  in  Ireland  since  the  days  of  Con  Bacagh. 

It  is  also  worthy  of  note  that  the  rising — by  the  admission 
of  Maguire,  McMahon  and  others  of  its  promoters — had 
been  conceived  and  planned  many  years  before,  at  a  time 
when  the  Puritan  party  was  all  too  insecure  to  contemplate 
foreign  crusades  against  the  religion  of  a  neighbouring  island. 
As  early  as  1634  a  priest  named  Emer  McMahon,  after- 
wards famous  as  Roman  Catholic  Bishop  of  Clogher, 
gave  information  to  Sir  George  Radclyffe  that  a  general 
insurrection  in  Ireland  was  in  preparation.*  Straff ord 
himself  had  a  further  warning  in  1637.* 

1  Lord  Maguire's  confession  (Nalson,  vol.  ii.  p.  544). 

8  See  Preface,  Borlase's  Rebellion. 

3  Straff  ord  to  Secretary  Coke,  August  15,  163?, 


120       APOLOGETIC   VIEW  OF  THE   RISING    [CHAP,  in 

It  is,  perhaps,  a  consciousness  of  the  weakness  of  his 
plea  that  prompts  Mr.  Lecky  to  use  the  word  "  Puritan  " 
in   place   of   "  Covenanter " ;    but   it  is  common  ground, 
which  is  not  even  questioned,  that  the  Puritan  army  of 
invasion  was  to  be  wholly  Scottish  and  commanded  by 
General  Leslie.1     The  same  consciousness  of  weakness  is 
probably   responsible    for   his    exploitation    of   a   supple- 
mentary excuse  for  the  rising,  and  for  the  horrors  that 
accompanied  it,   in  the  bitter  recollections  cherished  by 
the    Irish  of  the   many  thousands   of  the   preceding  or 
penultimate  generation  who  had  been  deliberately  starved 
to  death  by  Mount  joy.     This  remarkable  and  ingenious 
excuse  has  little  more  value  than  the  other,  because   it 
is  based  on  a  fiction.     The  famine  of  1603,  to  which  Mr. 
Lecky   alludes,    was    of  a   very   parochial   extent,    being 
practically   confined   to  South-West  Tyrone,  South-West 
Antrim  and  North-West  Down,  or,  in  other  words,  to  the 
districts  under  the  immediate  jurisdiction  of  Sir  Arthur 
Chichester.     In    these    districts    Chichester    undoubtedly 
did  plan  out  and  bring  about  a  famine,  which  was  respon- 
sible for  some  very  horrid  tragedies,  described  by  Fynes 
Moryson   in   his  Itinerary.     East    Antrim,   however,   was 
spared  for  purposes  of  supplying  the  Carrickfergus  garrison, 
and  South  Down  was  out  of  Chichester's  reach.     It  must 
also  be  borne  in  mind  that,  although  the  1603  famine  in 
East  Ulster    had    been    deliberately    brought    about    by 
Chichester  (at  the  instigation  of  Mountjoy)  as  a  means 
of  bringing   Tyrone's   long   rebellion   to   a   close,    it   was 
greatly  aggravated  by  the  depredations  of  certain  Irish 
brigand  chiefs,  of  whom  the  most  prominent  was  Brian 
McArt,  a  nephew  of  Tyrone's  and  half-brother  to  Owen 
Roe.     This    illegitimate    son    of    an    illegitimate    father, 
finding    himself   landless    and    penniless,    had    taken    up 
brigandage  as  a  means  of  subsistence.     He  started  success- 
fully by  murdering  Cormac  McBrian,  Captain  of  Killutagh, 
and,    with    500   bandit   followers,    established   himself   in 
the  dead  man's  Castle,  from  which  he  was  used  to  sally 
forth  and  scour  the  country  round  for  grain  or  cattle, 
leaving  the   owners   to   starve.     It   was   while   returning 
from   the    suppression   of    this    brigand   that    Chichester 
witnessed  the  horrid  sights  described  by  Fynes  Moryson. 

1  See    Remonstrance    of    Irish  Roman    Catholics    (Lodge's    Desiderata 
Curiosa). 


1641]     MR.  LECKY  EXCUSES  THE  MASSACRES        121 

The  picture  conjured  up  by  Lecky  of  the  native  Irish 
being  goaded  to  the  perpetration  of  atrocities  by  the 
thought  of  their  starved  ancestors  is  particularly  unfor- 
tunate in  this  respect,  that,  in  the  districts  where  the 
famine  did  occur,  there  were  comparatively  few  massacres, 
thanks  to  the  prompt  measures  for  defence  taken  by  the 
Antrim  and  Down  colonists,  while  Co.  Armagh,  where 
the  massacres  were  at  their  worst,  was  a  county  entirely 
untouched  by  the  famine  of  1603.  So  conspicuously  was 
this  the  case  that,  when  Mountjoy  established  the  landless 
and  penniless  Henry  McShane  (Sir  Phelim's  great-grand- 
father) as  a  landed  proprietor  in  Co.  Armagh,  he 
brought  over  a  number  of  the  O'Neil's  people  from  the 
other  side  of  the  Blackwater  into  Co.  Armagh,  on 
account  of  the  abundance  of  food  supplies  to  be  there 
found. 

The  apologetic  character  of  Mr.  Lecky's  treatment  of 
the  rising  extends  beyond  the  question  of  causes  to  the 
actual  massacre  itself,  and  in  this  field  of  investigation 
reaches  some  very  grotesque  lengths,  and  follows  many 
crooked  and  devious  tracks.  For  instance,  he  devotes 
much  time  to  proving  that  there  was  no  general  massacre 
of  the  British  during  the  first  fortnight  of  the  rebellion 
— an  uncalled-for  waste  of  energy  on  the  part  of  a  modern 
historian,  because  it  is  common  ground  that  there  was 
not,  nor  has  such  a  claim  been  put  forward  by  any  accre- 
dited historian  of  the  last  150  years.  Green,  it  is  true, 
in  his  History  of  the  English  People,*  makes  some  wild 
and  ridiculous  statements  :  as,  for  instance,  that  50,000 
English  were  killed  in  a  few  days ;  but  he  does  not  go  so 
far  as  to  say  that  this  was  at  the  beginning  of  the  rising. 
Mr.  Lecky's  object,  however,  in  enlarging  on  a  fact  which 
is  not  disputed  is  plain.  He  is  straining  to  make  the 
point  that  the  massacres — when  they  did  take  place — 
were  acts  of  provoked  retaliation,  and,  in  some  cases, 
genuine  acts  of  war.  In  his  eagerness,  however,  to  prove 
that  black  is  white  he  loses  his  judicial  sense  and  becomes 
inconsistent.  Here  is  a  typical  instance.  He  puts  for- 
ward the  extraordinary  plea  that  the  heavy  losses  which 
the  Irish  almost  invariably  sustained  when  they  en- 
countered the  colonists  in  the  field  were  in  the  same 
category  as  the  Irish  massacres  of  defenceless  and  un- 
armed men,  women  and  children,  This  was,  in  fact,  the 


122       APOLOGETIC  VIEW  OF  THE  RISING   [CHAP,  in 

doctrine  which  governed  the  Irish  behaviour  in  1641 
and  1642,  but  it  is  hardly  a  doctrine  that  will  commend 
itself  to  the  Anglo-Saxon  mind.  The  genuine  encounters 
between  armed  forces,  which  took  place  in  Ulster  during 
1641  and  the  spring  of  1642,  were  between  British  agri- 
culturists and  townsmen  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Irish 
native  population  on  the  other,  both  alike  hurriedly  called 
to  the  ranks  by  the  crisis,  and  both  alike  ill-armed  and 
ill-provided  with  the  necessaries  of  war.  The  Irish  were 
always  numerically  superior  to  their  opponents,  some- 
times enormously  so,  and  they  had  the  advantage  of  a 
nucleus  of  6,000  thoroughly  trained  soldiers.  In  spite 
of  these  advantages,  however,  they  were  almost  invariably 
unsuccessful  in  their  armed  encounters  with  the  colonists. 
Up  to  July  1646,  when  at  Benburb  the  Irish  achieved 
a  magnificent  and  well-merited  victory  over  Monro,  the 
only  two  successes  they  were  able  to  register  in  Ulster, 
during  the  five  years  which  had  elapsed  since  the  out- 
break of  the  rising,  were  at  Garvagh  and  Bundooragh. 
On  each  of  these  occasions  they  claimed — and  probably 
with  justice — to  have  killed  from  400  to  500  of  the  British. 
On  every  other  occasion  when  the  natives  and  the  colonists 
met  the  former  were  defeated,  not  only  with  heavy  IDSS, 
but  without  inflicting  any  corresponding  injury  on  the 
British.  To  argue,  however,  that  these  losses  justified 
the  Irish  in  killing  their  non-combatant  prisoners  in  cold 
blood,  which  was  unquestionably  their  own  view,  is  to 
take  us  back  to  the  Stone  Age. 

The  climax,  however,  of  Mr.  Lecky's  inconsistency  is 
reached  when — after  arguing  for  his  own  ends  that  the 
British  losses  in  battle  were  infinitesimal — he  follows  on 
with  the  astonishing  statement  that  a  large  proportion 
of  the  British,  reputed  to  have  been  massacred,  actually 
fell  in  battle. 

Further  evidence  of  a  disinclination  to  face  the  truth 
is  to  be  found  in  the  way  in  which  Mr.  Lecky  restricts  his 
researches  to  those  districts  which  were  notoriously  free 
from  massacres.  He  points  out  with  perfect  truth,  but 
with  unnecessary  insistence,  that  there  was  no  general 
massacre  in  Antrim  or  Down  ;  but  he  omits  to  mention 
that  the  reason  this  was  so  was  because,  on  the  very  first 
day  of  the  rising,  Colonel  Chichester  and  Colonel  Matthews 
rallied  the  British  colonists  in  those  counties  into  a  defence 


1641]  MR.    LECKY'S  OBVIOUS  BIAS  123 

corps,  which  succeeded  in  affording  protection  to  many 
thousands  of  the  colonists  in  those  two  counties. 

The  county  which  Mr.  Lecky  favours  with  the  largest 
share  of  his  attention  is  the  county  of  Cavan,  It  can 
hardly  have  been  by  accident  that  he  selected,  as  the 
field  for  his  scrutiny  into  the  realities  of  the  massacres,  the 
one  county  in  Ulster  where  the  better-class  Irish  steadily 
set  their  faces  against  the  massacre  of  the  British.  "  In 
the  Co.  Cavan,"  Ferdinando  Warner  writes,  "  there 
were  fewer  and  less  horrid  cruelties  executed  than  in  any 
other  county  of  the  province  of  Ulster."  This  is  the 
county  to  which  Mr.  Lecky  restricts  his  researches.  From 
his  point  of  view  he  is  wise  ;  but  it  at  once  becomes  clear 
that,  as  a  serious  inquiry  into  the  extent  of  massacres 
which  mainly  occurred  elsewhere,  Mr.  Lecky's  investiga- 
tions in  Cavan  have  little  value.  Cavan  was  outside  of 
the  massacre  zone.  For  many  generations  past  the 
O'Reillys  had  been  a  century  ahead  of  the  rest  of  the 
Ulster  chiefs  in  civilisation  and  manliness.  All  through 
the  reigns  of  Elizabeth  and  James  I  Cavan  had  been  the 
most  loyal  and  progressive  of  the  Ulster  counties,  and 
under  Charles  I  it  had  maintained  its  reputation.  Only 
one  outrage  of  any  magnitude  stands  to  its  discredit  dur- 
ing the  rising  of  1641 — 1642,  and  that  was  perpetrated 
behind  the  backs  of  the  O'Reillys,  and  called  forth  their 
unqualified  condemnation. 

To  the  county  of  Armagh,  on  the  other  hand,  which  was 
the  fountain-head  of  the  rising,  and  where  the  massacres 
were  at  their  worst,  Mr.  Lecky  makes  only  one  reference, 
and  that  is  a  misleading  one.  He  refers  to  a  very  horrid 
incident  in  which  twenty-four  men,  women  and  children 
were  burned  to  death  in  the  parish  of  Kilmore,  and — in  an 
attempt  to  minimise  the  brutality  of  the  deed — suggests 
that  it  was  "  probably  as  the  result  of  a  siege."  *  The 
suggestion  shows  that,  behind  Mr.  Lecky's  friendly  offices, 
is  a  genuine  ignorance  of  facts.  The  scene  of  the  burning 
in  question  was  a  thatched  cottage  where  an  old  woman 
named  Ann  Smith  lived  with  her  children  and  grandchil- 
dren. The  victims,  mainly  women  and  children,  were 
driven  into  this  cottage  by  a  mob  of  hooligans,  headed  by 
a  virago  named  Jane  Hamskin  ;  after  which  the  thatch 

>  Lecky's  History  of  England,  vol.  ii.  chap.  vi. 


124       APOLOGETIC  VIEW  OF  THE  RISING   [CHAP.  lit 

was  set  fire  to  and  finally  fell  in  a  blazing  mass  on  those 
inside.1     Such  was  Mr.  Lecky's  siege. 

In  another  passage  he  tries  to  scout  the  idea  of  a 
general  massacre  by  quoting  Audley  Mervyn's  statement 
that  the  Lagan  Force,  of  which  he  was  a  member,  rescued 
6,000  men,  women  and  children.  This  line  of  argument 
once  more  makes  it  clear  that  Mr.  Lecky's  investigation  of 
his  facts  has  been  very  superficial.  The  Lagan  Force  was 
specially  formed  to  protect  East  Donegal,  North  and  West 
Tyrone,  and  West  Londonderry  from  the  bloody  incur- 
sions of  the  natives,  and,  owing  to  its  prompt  action  and 
resolute  attitude,  many  thousands  of  the  British  women 
and  children  from  those  parts  were  able  to  find  their 
way  in  safety  to  Raphoe,  Newtownstewart,  Strabane,  Derry, 
Coleraine,  Castle  Derg  and  Augher.  We  know  that  many 
of  the  6,000  in  question,  referred  to  by  Mervyn,  were 
Fermanagh  people,  who,  in  the  first  instance,  were  rescued 
by  Sir  William  Cole  at  Enniskillen,  and  by  him  were 
handed  over  to  the  Lagan  Force,  which  conveyed  them 
safely  to  the  above-named  places.8  The  services  ren- 
dered by  the  Lagan  Force  to  the  scattered  British  were  of 
a  very  remarkable  nature.  For  nine  years  it  acted  as  a 
protective  force  to  the  colonists  of  North-West  Ulster, 
without  meeting  with  a  single  reverse.  Its  unbroken 
record  of  victories,  its  astonishing  mobility  and  incom- 
parable daring  entitle  it  to  rank  as  one  of  the  most  re- 
markable armed  forces  in  history.  That  the  Lagan 
Force,  in  combination  with  Sir  William  Cole,  was  instru- 
mental in  saving  many  thousands  of  lives  is  unquestion- 
able, but  unfortunately  there  were  very  many  others 
whom  it  could  not  save.  Audley  Mervyn,  from  whom 
Mr.  Lecky  quotes  as  above,  gave  it  as  his  opinion  that,  of 
those  who  were  left  in  Fermanagh,  not  twenty  escaped. 
"  I  can  confidently  affirm,"  he  says,  "  that  out  of  the 
county  of  Fermanagh,  one  of  the  best  planted  counties 
with  English,  I  could  never  give  an  account  of  twenty 
men  escaped,  except,  which  is  most  improbable,  they 
should  fly  to  Dublin.  As  for  the  chiefest  (my  own  estate 
meering  upon  the  marches  of  that  county)  having  enquired 
from  prisoners  by  name  for  such  and  such,  they  have  in- 
formed me  they  were  all  massacred."  * 

»  For  full  details  see  p.  217. 

*  See  Vindication  of  Sir  William  Cole,  Coll.  of  Tracts,  British  Museum. 

3  "Relation"  of  Audley  Mervyn. 


1641]  THE  DEPOSITIONS  125 

Mr.  Lecky  entirely  ignores  the  summing  up  of  Judge 
Donellan  on  the  occasion  of  Sir  Phelim  O'NeiPs  trial. 
This  judge,  himself  an  Irishman,  made  the  positive  state- 
ment, in  his  summing  up,  that  5,000  British  had  been 
massacred  in  the  first  three  days  of  May  1642,  as  also 
that  680  had  at  different  times  been  drowned,  or  other- 
wise killed,  at  Scarva  Bridge  over  the  Bann.  As  far  as 
appears  from  the  Records  of  the  High  Court  of  Justice 
in  Dublin,  Sir  Phelim  made  no  denial  of  these  statements  ; 
but,  in  justification,  claimed  that  the  May  massacres  had 
been  provoked  by  Monro's  severities  at  Newry.  It  is 
probable  that,  at  the  time  of  writing,  Mr.  Lecky  had  no 
knowledge  of  the  existence  of  this  document,  otherwise 
his  suppression  of  such  a  cogent  piece  of  evidence  is  not 
easily  to  be  excused. 

In  other  directions,  however,  he  cannot  claim  an  equal 
ignorance,  nor  can  he  be  freed  from  the  charge  of  wil- 
fully misleading  his  public.  He  quotes  redundantly,  for 
instance,  from  patriotic  writers  in  substantiation  of  the 
cruel  retaliatory  acts  of  the  British,  but  disallows  as 
unreliable  all  similar  evidence  on  the  other  side.  This, 
no  doubt,  makes  for  popularity  with  a  certain  section 
of  the  English-reading  public  ;  but  it  is  not  history.  There 
can  be  no  logical  justification  for  accepting  the  hearsay 
versions  of  irresponsible  writers  as  evidence,  and  for 
discarding  as  unreliable  the  solemnly  sworn  depositions 
of  hundreds  of  eye-witnesses  on  the  other  side  ;  nor  is  it 
logical  to  argue  that,  because  some  of  the  depositions 
are  obviously  hysterical  and  exaggerated,  they  are  to  be 
discredited  as  a  whole.  There  are  thirty-two  volumes  of 
these  sworn  depositions  in  the  library  of  Trinity  College, 
Dublin,  which  describe — sometimes  in  revolting  detail — 
the  cruelties  practised  on  the  British  colonists  during  the 
first  eight  months  of  the  rising,  i.e.  before  one-sided  mas- 
sacre had  been  replaced  by  definite  war.  Even  after 
many  of  these  depositions,  which  have  obviously  little 
value  as  evidence,  have  been  put  aside,  there  still  remains 
a  mass  of  documents  furnishing  evidence  as  irrefutable  as 
any  on  which  history  is  built  up.  The  depositions  them- 
selves were  sworn  to  before  a  commission  of  men  specially 
selected  for  their  high  principles  and  probity.  Mr.  Lecky 
tries  to  minimise  their  value  by  pointing  out  that  in  some 
cases  the  words  "  taken  upon  oath  "  have  been  lightly 


126       APOLOGETIC  VIEW  OF  THE  RISING   [CHAP,  ill 

erased  with  a  pen.  This  in  itself  has  no  special  signifi- 
cance, beyond  furnishing  prima  facie  proof  of  the  meti- 
culous honesty  of  those  before  whom  the  depositions  were 
taken  ;  and  it  should  certainly  enhance  their  value  as 
evidence  rather  than  diminish  it.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
however,  Miss  Hickson,  who  has  devoted  more  care  than 
any  other  writer  to  the  examination  of  the  depositions, 
draws  attention  to  the  fact  that,  in  every  case  where  the 
words  "  taken  upon  oath  "  are  erased,  there  stand  at  the 
foot  of  the  documents  the  words  "  jurat  pro  nobis."  Mr. 
Lecky's  knowledge  of  these  intensely  interesting  human 
documents,  which  he  so  lightly  discredits,  is  very  super- 
ficial indeed,  and,  in  fact,  Miss  Hickson  extracted  from 
him  an  admission  that  he  had  never  personally  inspected 
them.1  It  is  ,very  clear,  throughout  his  treatment  of  the 
matter,  that  his  sole  reason  for  trying  to  minimise  the 
value  of  the  depositions  is  because  they  paint  the  seven- 
teenth-century Irish  a  different  colour  from  that  which  he 
would  wish  them  painted.  This  is  no  doubt  a  well-meant 
effort,  but  it  is  not  the  way  in  which  to  wipe  out  ancient 
animosities.  A  far  more  disarming  spirit  is  that  of  the 
Rev.  Dr.  O'Connor,  an  Irish  Roman  Catholic  writer  (quoted 
by  Leland)  who  admits  with  no  less  common  sense  than 
honesty  that :  "  Our  ancestors  were  guilty  of  abomina- 
tions— atrocious  crimes  to  which  the  present  generation, 
thank  God,  look  back  with  all  the  horror  and  indignation 
they  deserve."  *  Father  Walsh,  another  Roman  Catholic 
priest,  no  less  honest,  wrote  to  Ormonde  in  1659  :  "  Your 
Grace  knows  with  what  horror  the  Irish  nation  looks 
upon  the  massacres  and  murders  in  the  north  committed 
at  the  beginning  of  the  rebellion  by  the  rascal  multitude 
upon  their  innocent,  unarmed  and  unprovided  neigh- 
bours." >  Honest  and  sensible  admissions  such  as  these, 
if  universal,  would  tend  more  than  anything  to  wipe  out 
ancient  feuds.  Nothing  disarms  more  effectually  than 
admission  of  wrong.  Unfortunately,  so  far  from  being 
universal,  such  admissions  are  of  the  rarest  occurrence  in 
patriotic  circles.  Such  as  make  them  are  branded  as 
traitors.  Father  Walsh  was  excommunicated  for  his 
honesty.  In  this  childish  refusal  to  admit  error  lies  the 

1  See  Introduction  to  Ireland  in  the  Seventeenth  Century. 

1  Hist.  Add.,  pt.  ii.  p.  234. 

«  See  The  Irish  Colours  Folded  and  Tracts  of  Irish  History  from  1655-1 682. 


1641]    UNPOPULARITY  OF  TRUTH  IN  ICELAND    127 

root  of  much  evil.  Truth  is  faced  in  the  histories  of  other 
countries.  In  our  own  histories  of  England  and  Scotland  it 
is  faced,  even  when  unpalatable.  In  histories  of  Ireland  it  is 
never  faced.  Not  only  is  it  not  voluntarily  faced,  but  when 
proffered  it  is  railed  at  as  an  evil  thing.  Make-believe  has 
so  long  held  sway  that  truth  arrives  on  the  scene  with  all 
the  aspect  of  an  ogre.  As  a  consequence,  the  real  history 
of  their  country  is  a  sealed  book  to  the  vast  majority  of 
the  Irish.  They  neither  ask  for  it  nor  is  it  given  them. 

Mr.  Lecky,  it  must  be  owned,  seems  from  time  to  time 
to  become  conscious  of  the  way  in  which  he  is  sacrificing 
truth  to  sentiment,  for  he  conscientiously  pulls  himself 
up  with  such  qualifying  admissions  as  :  "  There  can,  how- 
ever, be  no  real  question  that  the  rebellion  in  Ulster 
was  extremely  horrible,  and  was  accompanied  by  a  great 
number  of  atrocious  murders."  "  It  is  impossible  to 
doubt  that  murders  occurred  on  a  large  scale,  with  appal- 
ling frequency  and  often  with  atrocious  circumstances 
of  aggravation  "  ;  and  yet  again  :  "  No  impartial  writer 
will  deny  that  the  rebellion  in  Ulster  was  extremely  savage 
and  bloody."  *  At  other  times  his  trained  regard  for 
truth  forces  from  him  damaging  admissions,  which  he 
cannot  in  honesty  suppress  entirely  ;  but,  even  then,  his 
irrepressible  bias  prompts  him  to  clothe  these  admissions 
in  so  few  words  that  their  effect  is — as  intended — swamped 
in  the  mass  of  rhetoric  on  the  other  side ;  e.g.  he  admits 
in  one  brief  sentence  that  the  greater  part  of  the  Drog- 
heda  garrison  whom  Cromwell  put  to  the  sword  were 
English,  and — having  made  this  necessary  concession  to 
fact — he  enlarges  on  the  horrors  that  followed  on  the 
assault  in  language  which  suggests  to  the  careless  reader 
that  all  the  victims  were  Irish.  This  is  not  quite  honest, 
but  it  is  very  typical  of  Mr.  Lecky's  treatment  of  all  ques- 
tions affecting  Ireland.  There  is  a  ceaseless  suggeslio 
falsi,  which  can  be  plainly  read  between  the  lines,  but 
always  with  a  convenient  loophole  for  escape  tucked 
away  somewhere  in  the  text,  on  which  he  can  fall  back  if 
challenged. 

One  of  the  chief  authorities  on  whom  Mr.  Lecky  relies 
is  the  Rev.  Mr.  Clogy,  the  author  of  Bishop  Bedell's  life. 
Clogy  was  a  prisoner  in  Co.  Cavan  throughout  the 
rising,  and  was  well  treated.  His  point  of  view,  in  conse- 

1  Lecky's  History  of  England,  vol.  ii.  chap.  vi. 
10 


128       APOLOGETIC  VIEW  OF  THE  RISING   [CHAP,  in 

quence  of  his  imprisonment,  was  very  restricted,  and  re- 
stricted to  the  one  county  in  which  there  were  "  fewer  and 
less  horrid  cruelties  than  in  any  other  county  of  the 
province  of  Ulster."  Because  this  good  cleric  makes  na 
mention  of  any  particular  massacres  of  which  he  was  an 
eye-witness  through  his  prison  windows,  Mr.  Lecky  seeks 
to  deduce  from  his  writings  that  there  were  no  massacres. 
But  here  again  he  is  not  quite  honest,  or  else  a  very  super- 
ficial investigator,  or  he  could  hardly  have  overlooked 
the  following  passage  written  by  the  author  from  whose 
writings  he  deduces  that  there  were  no  massacres  :  "  After 
a  morning  Mass  that  bloody  and  unparalleled  massacre 
commenced."  * 

1  Clogy's  Life  of  Bedell. 


CHAPTER    IV 

BETRAYAL   OF  THE   PLOT 

THE  short  administration  of  Parsons  and  Borlase,  prior 
to  the  rising,  was  remarkable  for  two  acts  of  much-desired 
legislative  reform.  By  the  provisions  of  the  first  of  these, 
known  as  the  Act  of  Limitation,  no  title  to  land  could  be 
questioned  where  the  owner,  or  his  direct  ancestors,  had 
been  in  unchallenged  possession  for  sixty  years.  This 
was,  in  effect,  the  most  important  of  the  original  much- 
desired  Graces.  The  second,  known  as  the  Act  of  Re- 
linquishment,  abrogated  the  royal  rights  to  plant  with 
British  certain  escheated  districts  in  Munster,  Leinster 
and  Connaught.1  Both  these  Acts,  but  especially  the 
second,  were  of  supreme  importance  to  the  native  section 
of  the  population.  A  third  Act  to  the  credit  of  the  Lords 
Justices,  and  one  which  was  little  less  popular  than  the 
other  two,  provided  for  the  reduction  of  the  outstanding 
subsidies  from  £45,000  each  to  £12,000.*  It  is  a  note- 
worthy fact  that  these  three  conciliatory  Acts,  all  of  which 
were  of  a  singularly  popular  nature,  were  almost  immedi- 
ately followed  by  the  most  sanguinary  rebellion  in  the 
annals  of  Ireland. 

The  gradual  steps  which  led  up  to  this  rebellion  were 
briefly  as  follows  :  A  man  named  Rory  O'More,  better 
known  as  Roger  Moore,  had  for  many  years  been  secretly 
planning  an  upheaval  in  Ireland,  which  would  have  the 
effect  of  ridding  the  country  of  the  British  and  restoring 
the  ancient  order  of  things,  which  meant,  in  plain  Eng- 
lish, the  old  rights  of  the  Irish  chiefs  to  a  tyrannical  sway 
over  large  tracts  of  country.  Moore's  preliminary  negotia- 
tions had  been  mainly  conducted  abroad,  where  he  had 
interviewed  many  expatriated  Irishmen,  including  Owen 
Roe  O'Neil.  Having  succeeded  in  interesting  the  Conti- 
nental Irish,  Moore  then  returned  to  Ireland,  where  he 
communicated  his  scheme  to  a  few  influential  leaders  of 

1  Sir  John  Temple's  Rebellion.  •  Ibid. 


130  BETRAYAL  OF  THE  PLOT  [CHAP,  iv 

opinion  in  Ulster,  which  was  obviously  the  province 
chiefly  interested  in  the  expulsion  of  the  British.  The 
only  Englishmen  admitted  to  the  secret — according  to 
Carte — were  the  Earl  of  Mayo,  Colonel  Plunkett  and  Sir 
James  Dillon.  The  details  of  the  negotiations  which  fol- 
lowed, and  which  covered  a  period  of  two  years,  are  given 
in  full  detail  in  Lord  Maguire's  lengthy  confession.  There 
would  be  little  gained  by  a  lengthy  recital  of  all  these 
details,  which  have  been  set  out  in  most  Irish  histories. 
It  will  be  sufficient  to  say  that  Maguire's  chief  arguments 
for  striking  in  the  year  1641  were:  (1)  The  defeat  of  the 
King's  army  by  the  Scots  at  Newburn  in  August  of  the 
previous  year,  which  seemed  to  indicate  his  military  weak- 
ness; (2)  his  money  difficulties,  which  put  the  raising 
of  an  efficient  army  beyond  his  means ;  and  (3)  The  pre- 
sence in  Ulster  of  6,000  trained  Irish  soldiers,  only  dis- 
banded four  months  before  the  outbreak  of  the  rising. 
A  further  encouragement  to  strike  at  once  was  found  in  a 
promise,  received  in  the  spring  of  1641  from  Cardinal 
Richelieu,  that  help  in  the  hour  of  need  would  be  forth- 
coming from  France.  Even  so,  however,  several  post- 
ponements were  found  necessary,  owing  to  unexpected 
hitches  at  home.  The  sudden  death  in  Catalonia  of 
Shane  O'Neil  (who  styled  himself  Earl  of  Tyrone,  and 
who  was  the  intended  figure-head  of  the  movement)  was 
a  serious  blow  to  the  enterprise  from  the  Nationalist 
point  of  view  ;  but  the  calamity  was  discreetly  suppressed, 
and  the  movement  pushed  forward  under  the  glamour  of 
his  name.  There  was  some  little  doubt  in  the  minds  of 
the  conspirators  as  to  how  the  Lords  of  the  Pale  would 
behave,  for,  though  these  were  allied  to  them  in  religion, 
they  were  racially  antagonistic.  In  the  end  the  Pale 
Lords  undertook  to  join  the  rebellion  after  the  first  blows 
had  been  decisively  struck,  but  they  refused  to  have  any 
part  in  the  striking  of  these  blows.1  After  several  post- 
ponements, October  5  was  the  date  fixed  upon  for  the 
seizure  of  all  the  principal  places  in  Ireland.  This  date, 
however,  had — like  the  others — to  be  abandoned,  as  Sir 
Phelim  O'Neil,  whose  allotted  task  in  the  general  scheme 
was  the  seizure  of  Derry,  pleaded  that  he  was  not  suffi- 
ciently prepared. 

The    final    meeting    to    arrange   details   was   held   at 

1  Lord  Maguire's  Confession. 


1641]  PLANS  OF  THE  REBELS  181 

Loughrosse,  Tirlough  O'NeiPs  house  in  the  Fews  (Co. 
Armagh).  Here,  on  October  5,  Captain  O'Neil,  Emer 
McMahon  (afterwards  Bishop  of  Clogher),  Sir  Phelim 
O'Neil,  Lord  Maguire  and  Roger  Moore  met  to  make  the 
final  arrangements  as  to  date,  ^allocation  of  duties,  etc. 
October  23  was  finally  fixed  upon  for  the  general  rising, 
the  idea  being  that,  as  it  was  a  Saturday  and  a  market- 
day,  crowds  moving  along  the  highways  would  attract 
little  attention. 

Dublin  Castle  was  to  be  seized  upon  by  200  picked  men 
drafted  into  Dublin  for  the  purpose  from  various  parts  of 
Leinster  and  Ulster.  Roger  Moore  and  Colonel  Byrne 
were  to  lead  the  Leinster  men  against  the  lower  castle 
gate,  while  Sir  Phelim  and  Lord  Maguire  attacked  the 
upper  gate  with  the  Ulster  contingents.  Neither  Sir 
Phelim,  however,  nor  Maguire  appears  to  have  embraced 
this  opportunity  for  distinguishing  himself  with  any 
enthusiasm.  The  former  excused  himself  on  the  grounds 
that  his  presence  was  needed  at  Derry.  The  latter,  accord- 
ing to  his  own  confession,  tried  hard  to  formulate  some 
effective  excuse,  but,  finding  none  ready  to  his  mind,  was  at 
length  prevailed  upon  to  undertake  the  task  assigned  him.1 

When  the  appointed  time  arrived  it  was  found  that 
neither  Sir  Phelim  nor  Coll  McBrian  McMahon  had  sent 
up  to  Dublin  the  contingents  he  had  promised,  so  that 
only  80  men  were  forthcoming  instead  of  the  200  expected. 
In  spite  of  this  disappointment  it  was  decided  to  proceed 
with  the  business,  but,  before  the  final  steps  could  be  carried 
through,  the  whole  plot  was  shattered  by  the  arrest  of  Lord 
Maguire,  Hugh  Oge  McMahon,  and  some  thirty  others. 

This  counter-blow  appears  to  have  effectually  quenched 
the  ardour  of  the  remaining  leaders,  who  were  unwilling 
to  attempt  anything  which  was  not  in  the  nature  of  a 
complete  surprise.  There  can  be  little  doubt,  however, 
that,  had  they  prosecuted  their  attack  with  promptitude 
and  vigour,  they  could  easily  have  overcome  any  feeble 
resistance  which  the  unprepared  British  were  in  a  posi- 
tion to  offer.  The  Dublin  Castle  garrison  consisted  of 
eight  old  men  and  forty  ornamental  halberdiers,  used  for 
State  functions.8  Over  90  per  cent,  of  the  Dublin  popu- 
lation were  Roman  Catholics,  and,  as  such,  sympathetic 
with  the  revolt,  and  there  was  no  military  commander  of 

i*Lord  Maguire's  Confession.  z  Carte's  Ormonde. 


132  BETRAYAL  OF  THE  PLOT  [CHAP,  iv 

any  capacity  on  the  spot.  In  the  vaults  of  Dublin  Castle 
were  1,500  barrels  of  powder,  and  arms  for  10,000  men, 
while  in  the  Arsenal  near  the  Riding  School  were  thirty- 
five  pieces  of  artillery.1  But  for  the  timidity  of  the  rebels, 
there  can  be  small  doubt  but  that  this  great  prize  would 
have  been  theirs,  and  Ireland— for  many  months  to  come 
— would  have  been  at  their  mercy.  The  prospect  of 
opposition,  however — even  though  feeble  and  impromptu 
— was  too  much  for  their  resolution,  and  they  allowed 
the  golden  opportunity  to  pass. 

The  arrest  of  McMahon  and  Maguire  was  brought  about 
by  a  curious  chain  of  accidents.  Sir  William  Cole  of 
Enniskillen  had  been  warned  of  the  intended  rising  as 
far  back  as  October  11,  by  Brian  Maguire  of  Tempo  in 
Co.  Fermanagh.  On  the  same  day  Cole  forwarded  the 
information  received  to  the  Lords  Justices  in  Dublin, 
but  these,  in  place  of  accepting  his  report  as  a  serious 
warning,  wrote  back  requesting  fuller  and  further  par- 
ticulars. These  were  sent  later  on,  but  the  letter  was  un- 
fortunately intercepted,  and  the  Lords  Justices — on 
hearing  nothing  further  from  Cole — dismissed  the  matter 
from  their  minds.  The  surprise,  then,  would  have  been 
complete,  but  for  the  following  chance  incident.  On 
October  19  a  man  named  Owen  O' Connelly,  who  was  in 
the  employ  of  Sir  John  Clotworthy  at  Moneymore  in 
Co.  Londonderry,  received  a  message  from  Hugh  Oge 
McMahon  telling  him  to  come  at  once  to  a  place  called 
Connagh  in  Co.  Monaghan  and  see  him  with  regard 
to  a  matter  of  urgency.  O'Connelly  did  as  instructed, 
but,  on  arriving  at  Connagh,  found  that  McMahon  had 
already  left  for  Dublin.  The  next  step  (unforeseen  and 
undesired  by  McMahon)  was  that  O'Connelly  followed 
him  to  Dublin.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  McMahon's 
motive,  in  sending  for  O'Connelly,  was  to  warn  him  of  the 
possible  massacre  which  was  impending,  so  that  he  and 
his  family  might  take  refuge  in  Coleraine  or  Carrickfergus. 
O'Connelly  was  a  personal  friend  of  McMahon's,  but  he 
was  a  Protestant  and  .was  married  to  an  Englishwoman, 
and  was  therefore  more  than  likely  to  be  among  the 
victims.  In  any  case,  his  wife  and  family  would  have  been 
in  grave  danger.  It  was,  however,  no  part  of  McMahon's 
plan  that  O'Connelly  should  follow  him  to  Dublin. 
1  Carte's  Ormonde. 


1641]  BETRAYAL  OF  THE  REBEL  PLOT  183 

O'Connelly  arrived  in  Dublin  about  6  p.m.  on  Octo- 
ber 22,  and  at  once  sought  out  McMahon  at  his  lodgings 
in  Oxmanstown,  near  the  present  Four  Courts.  Being  in 
more  or  less  of  a  dilemma  at  his  unexpected  appearance, 
McMahon  walked  with  his  guest  as  far  as  Lord  Maguire's 
lodgings,  but,  not  finding  him  at  home,  the  two  adjourned 
to  the  "  Lion  "  in  Wine  Tavern  Street,  and  there  passed 
the  time  in  drinking.  Under  the  expanding  influence  of 
beer  and  spirits,  McMahon  told  O'Connelly  the  whole  story, 
under  an  oath  of  secrecy.  After  vainly  attempting  to 
dissuade  McMahon  from  having  any  further  part  in  the 
plot,  O'Connelly  left  him  and  went  straight  to  Sir  William 
Parson's  house,  where  he  told  his  tale.  Being  very  evi- 
dently drunk,  he  was  not  believed,  but,  as  a  precautionary 
measure,  was  sent  back  to  McMahon  to  extract  more 
detailed  particulars.  These  instructions  he  attempted  to 
carry  out,  but  McMahon's  suspicions  were  aroused  by  his 
reappearance  and  the  questions  he  put,  and  he  told 
O'Connelly  he  must  remain  with  him  till  the  morning. 
He  was,  however,  not  in  a  condition  to  enforce  his  own 
orders.  O'Connelly  managed  to  tumble  over  the  fence 
into  the  road,  and  once  more  found  his  way  to  Parson's 
house.  By  this  time  he  was  so  drunk  that  it  was  some 
hours  before  he  could  speak  with  any  coherence.  Even- 
tually he  was  taken  to  Sir  John  Borlase's  house  at  College 
Green,  and  there  he  succeeded  in  convincing  the  Lords 
Justices  of  the  truth  of  his  story,  and  McMahon  and 
Maguire  were  arrested,  the  latter  being  discovered  hiding 
in  a  cock-loft.1 

O'Connelly  was  at  once  sent  over  to  London  as  the 
bearer  of  the  news  he  had  already  imparted  to  the  Lords 
Justices,  and  was  subsequently  rewarded  for  his  services 
by  a  gift  of  £500  and  an  annuity  of  £200.*  He  eventually 
took  service  under  Sir  John  Clotworthy  in  Antrim,  and 
was  finally  killed  in  a  skirmish  near  Antrim. 

In  spite  of  the  arrest  of  two  of  the  principal  leaders, 
the  danger  of  a  forcible  seizure  of  Dublin  was  by  no  means 
over.  Borlase — though  a  soldier  by  profession — was  too 
old  and  indolent  to  have  any  value  as  a  military  leader. 
Sir  Charles  Coote  was  sent  for  and  appointed  Governor  of 
Dublin,  with  a  commission  to  raise  a  regiment  of  1,000 
foot  for  the  defence  of  the  capital.1  In  this  task  his  most 

*  Carte's  Ormonde.  •  Ibid.  »  Temple's  Rebellion. 


134  BETRAYAL   OF  THE   PLOT  [CHAP,  iv 

fruitful  recruiting-field  was  found  among  the  starved  and 
naked  refugees,  who  were  beginning  to  pour  in  from  the 
north,  and  the  horror  of  whose  experiences  later  on  drove 
them  to  some  bloody  acts  of  retaliation.  Colonel  Craw- 
ford, at  the  same  time,  was  authorised  to  raise  a  regiment 
from  among  the  British  inhabitants  of  Dublin;  but,  in 
the  end,  he  too  had  to  fall  back  on  "  the  stripped  and 
despoiled  English  who  came  to  Dublin  for  sanctuary."  1 

Discouraged  by  the  arrival  of  Coote,  following  on  the 
failure  of  the  original  surprise,  the  Irish  determined  to 
abandon  all  idea  of  seizing  the  castle  by  force,  and  to 
rely  on  the  slower,  but  safer,  course  of  a  blockade  of 
Dublin  by  land  and  sea. 

All  this  time  the  Roman  Catholic  Lords  of  the  Pale 
had  preserved  a  strictly  neutral  attitude.  This  appear- 
ance of  neutrality  they  successfully  managed  to  maintain 
for  a  month.  On  November  27,  however,  came  the  news 
of  the  complete  overthrow  at  Julianstown  of  a  relief 
column,  which  had  been  sent  to  reinforce  the  Drogheda 
garrison,  and  the  Pale  Lords,  taking  this  as  an  indication 
that  fortune  had  at  length  definitely  declared  itself  on  the 
side  of  the  Irish,  no  longer  hesitated  to  throw  in  their  lot 
with  their  co-religionists.  The  Earl  of  Fingall  and  Lord 
Gormanston  at  once  declared  themselves  on  the  side  of 
the  rebels,  and  their  example  was  quickly  followed  by  Lords 
Howth,  Louth,  Dunsany,  Netterville  and  Slane.  On  De- 
cember 9  these  new  recruits  to  the  rebel  cause  established 
a  camp  at  Swords,  six  miles  from  Dublin,  and  celebrated 
the  occasion  by  seizing  a  provision  ship  which  was  lying 
in  Clontarf  Harbour.  This  triumph  was  but  very  short- 
lived, for  Coote  promptly  swooped  down  from  Dublin 
and  recovered  the  stolen  provisions.  In  spite  of  this 
counter-stroke,  and  in  spite  of  several  minor  successes 
achieved  by  Coote  and  Crawford  in  the  outskirts  of  Dublin, 
the  position  of  both  Dublin  and  Drogheda  towards  the 
end  of  December  was  precarious  in  the  extreme.  On  the 
last  day  of  the  year  Sir  Simon  Harcourt  brought  over  the 
first  contingent  of  troops  from  England,  and  with  their 
arrival  new  hopes  sprang  up  in  the  hearts  of  the  handful 
of  beleaguered  British  colonists. 

The  outbreak  and  growth  of  the  rising  in  Ulster  may  now 
be  considered  in  detail 

1  Carte's  Ormonde,  vol.  i.  p.  247. 


CHAPTER    V 

DETAILS    OF   THE    RISING   IN    ULSTER 

ON  the  evening  of  Friday,  October  23,  Patrick  Modder 
Donnelly  rode  up  to  Dungannon  Castle  and  asked  Captain 
Perkins  for  leave  to  come  in  and  look  for  some  lost  sheep 
which  he  suspected  the  garrison  of  having  stolen.  Perkins 
gave  the  required  leave,  and  Donnelly  and  his  com- 
panions then  rode  in  and  made  instant  prisoners  of  all 
inside,  who  were  robbed  of  everything  and  stripped  to 
their  shirts,  but  not  otherwise  injured.  While  the  Irish 
were  busy  collecting  the  plunder,  Sir  Phelim  O'Neil  ap- 
peared on  the  scene,  and,  having  heartily  jeered  at  Perkins 
for  having  been  such  a  fool  as  to  believe  Donnelly,  rode 
on  to  Mountjoy  on  Perkins's  horse,  which  was  a  better  one 
than  his  own. 

In  the  meanwhile,  Neil  Oge  O'Quin  of  Donough- 
more  had  got  possession  of  Mountjoy  by  a  similar  ruse, 
and  was  already  in  possession  when  Sir  Phelim  rode  up. 
Before  Sir  Phelim  appeared  on  the  scene  O'Quin  had 
already  shed  the  first  blood  of  the  rising,  for  he  caused 
six  people  to  be  executed  for  upbraiding  him  with  his 
treacherous  conduct.  One  of  them  was  a  woman  named 
Williams,  and  another  was  a  very  old  man  known  as 
Ensign  Pugh.1  There  is  no  evidence  that  Sir  Phelim 
found  any  fault  with  O'Quin  for  these  murders  ;  on  the 
contrary,  all  the  evidence  is  in  the  other  direction,  for 
O'Quin  was  very  shortly  afterwards  installed  as  Governor 
of  Mountjoy. 

Sir  Phelim  then  rode  on  with  a  considerable  following 
to  Charlemont,  which  he  reached  between  10  and  11  p.m., 
and  to  which  no  news   of  the  irregular  proceedings  at 
Dungannon   and  Mountjoy  had  as   yet  penetrated.     Sir 
Phelim,  who  was  a  near  neighbour  and  a  personal  friend 
of  Lord  Caulfield,  was  readily  admitted    to    the    Castle, 
1  Dep.  of  Mr.  Nicholas  Coombe ;  Dep.  of  Sir  Wm.  Brownlow. 
135 


136    DETAILS  OF  THE  RISING  IN  ULSTER     [CHAP,  v 

and  at  once  made  prisoners  of  all  within,  some  of  Lord 
Caulfield's  servants  being  killed  during  the  process.1 

On  the  following  day  the  rebel  leader  returned  to  his 
own  house  at  Kinard  (Caledon),  but  slept  the  night  once 
more  at  Charlemont,  which  was  two  miles  nearer  the  scene 
of  his  intended  activities  than  his  own  house.  On  the 
24th  he  rode  into  Armagh,  where,  in  the  market-place,  he 
read  aloud  a  proclamation  adorned  with  a  fine  red  seal 
which  had  been  cut  off  one  of  the  documents  found  at 
Charlemont,  and  sewn  on  to  Sir  Phelim's  proclamation  by 
his  secretary,  Michael  Harrison.3  This  proclamation  pur- 
ported to  be  a  commission  from  the  King  which  gave 
Sir  Phelim  authority  for  everything  he  did.  He  after- 
wards confessed  that  it  was  a  forgery. 

There  is  a  strong  probability — though  it  is  still  a  con- 
tested point — that  Charles  actually  had,  during  the  latter 
half  of  the  previous  year,  given  some  sort  of  a  commis- 
sion to  Sir  Phelim  (as  he  undoubtedly  had  to  the  Earl  of 
Antrim)  to  raise  forces  to  help  him  against  the  parlia- 
mentary party  in  England  and  Scotland.  This  idea  had 
been  definitely  abandoned  with  the  disbanding  of  the 
Irish  army  at  Carrickfergus  in  June  1641.  The  original 
negotiations,  however — although  dead — were  sufficiently 
recent  to  enable  Sir  Phelim  to  twist  them  into  a  charter 
from  the  King  giving  him  authority  to  prosecute  his 
nefarious  schemes  against  the  Ulster  colonists.  Tremen- 
dous efforts,  which  did  not  stop  short  of  the  rack,  were 
afterwards  made  by  the  parliamentary  party  to  prove 
Charles's  complicity  in  the  rising,  but  without  success. 

The  waiving  of  the  false  commission  may  have  deceived, 
but  it  certainly  did  not  reassure,  the  British  residents  in 
the  town  of  Armagh,  who  had  heard  of  the  doings  at 
Mount  joy  and  Charlemont,  and  who  prudently  withdrew 
to  the  Great  Church,  which  they  provisioned  and  fortified. 
This  was  the  very  last  thing  that  Sir  Phelim  had  either 
wished  for  or  expected,  for  the  church  was  a  building  of 
great  strength,  and  almost  as  famous  for  its  military  as 
for  its  ecclesiastical  records  in  the  past.  He  made  no 
attempt  to  take  it  by  force,  but  returned  to  Charlemont, 
where  he  slept  on  the  night  of  the  24th  and  25th. 

The    whole    of    Co.    Armagh,    with    the    exception    of 

1  Dep.  of  Mrs.  Woodruffe;  Dep.  of  Major  Dory. 

8  Judge  Donellan's  Address ;    Examination  of  Dean  Kerr. 


1641]  DRUMBOATE  HOUSE  137 

Lurgan,  Lisburn  and  the  Great  Church  in  the  town  itself, 
was  by  now  in  the  hands  of  the  Irish.  Newry  had  been 
betrayed  into  the  hands  of  Sir  Con  Magennis  (Lord  Iveagh's 
uncle)  on  the  first  day  of  the  rising.  Sir  Arthur  Tyring- 
ham,  the  Governor,  managed  to  effect  his  escape  and 
reached  Dublin  safely  on  Sunday ;  but  Sir  Edward  Trevor, 
his  son,  and  Sir  Charles  Poyntz  were  taken  prisoners,  and 
seventy  barrels  of  powder  and  a  number  of  arms  fell 
into  the  hands  of  the  rebels.  On  the  same  day  Tan- 
daragee  was  taken  by  the  O'Hanlons.  Here,  again,  the 
Constable,  Captain  St.  John,  managed  to  escape  by  drop- 
ping over  the  wall,  and  made  his  way  on  foot  to  Lisburn. 

The  county  of  Monaghan  had  fared  little  better  than  that 
of  Armagh.  The  first  notification  of  the  outbreak  in 
this  county  had  been  the  seizure  of  Drumboate  House, 
the  property  of  Sir  Henry  Spottiswoode,  who  was  away 
in  Scotland  at  the  time.1  This  was  the  work  of  Henry 
O'Neil  of  Glasdromin  and  of  his  sons,  brother  and  nephew. 
Later  on,  when  the  massacres  began,  Henry  O'Neil,  who 
was  the  son  of  Tyrone's  half-brother,  Tirlough  McHenry 
of  the  Fews,  proved  a  good  friend  to  the  British  in  his 
district,  and  was  instrumental  in  saving  a  number  of 
lives  ;  but  his  retainers  were  clearly  otherwise  disposed, 
for  one  Paul  Reid  deposed  that  his  wife  and  five  children 
were  killed  by  these  retainers  on  the  first  day  of  the  rising 
and  within  a  mile  of  Glasdromin  House.8  Henry  O'Neil, 
though  averse  to  bloodshed,  was  not  equally  averse  to 
plunder,  for  we  are  told  that  he  stripped  his  absent  neigh- 
bour's house  of  everything  it  contained,  to  the  value 
of  £4,000.'  Apart  from  the  case  of  Reid's  wife  and  family, 
we  know  of  no  bloodshed  which  accompanied  this  burglari- 
ous enterprise,  but  Art  Oge's  son  (Henry  O'NeiPs  nephew), 
on  leaving  Drumboate,  gave  indications  of  his  temper 
in  the  matter  by  throwing  back  a  parting  shot  to  the 
effect  that  "  this  was  only  the  beginning  of  things,  for 
before  they  had  done  they  did  not  mean  to  leave  one 
alive,  rich  or  poor,  that  went  to  church." 4 

While  Henry  O'Neil  and  his  kinsmen  were  thus  engaged 
at  Drumboate,  Patrick  McLoughlin  McMahon  was  experi- 
encing equal  success  at  Castle  Blayney,  which  he  surprised 
and  seized  without  encountering  any  opposition.  Here 

1  Ferdinando  Warner.  *  Judge  Donellan's  Address. 

'  Dep.  of  Paul  Reid.  «  Dop.  of  Richard  Grave. 


138     DETAILS  OF  THE  RISING  IN  ULSTER  [CHAP,  v 

again  the  Constable,  Lord  Blayney,  managed  to  make 
his  escape  to  Dublin,  which  he  reached  at  noon  on  the  24th, 
and  where  he  added  to  the  dismay  that  was  already 
prevalent  by  his  report  of  the  disastrous  progress  of  the 
rising  in  his  county.1  Lady  Blayney  was  not  so  for- 
tunate as  her  husband,  for  she  was  captured  together 
with  her  two  sons,  Edward  and  Richard,  several  members 
of  the  Cope  family  and  all  the  Clotworthys  resident  in 
the  immediate  neighbourhood.  These  prisoners,  with 
various  others,  were  taken  to  Lord  Essex's  house  at 
Carrickmacross,  which  earlier  in  the  day  had  been  attacked 
by  a  large  party  of  the  McMahons  under  Coll  McBrian 
McMahon  and — being  without  any  means  of  defence — 
had  been  surrendered  by  the  resident  agent,  Mr.  Robert 
Branthwaite.  No  personal  injury  was  offered  to  any  of 
the  inmates,  but  they  were  all  stripped  to  their  shirts 
and  locked  in  as  prisoners,  while  everything  of  value  in 
the  house  was  carried  off.  Mr.  Branthwaite  himself, 
at  his  own  special  request,  was  not  lodged  with  the  other 
prisoners,  but  was  placed  in  the  house  of  a  friendly  Irish- 
man named  Edmund  Burke.  Here  he  remained  well 
treated  till  March  3,  when,  by  Coll  McBrian's  orders,  he, 
together  with  his  English  servant,  Anthony  Atkinson,  and 
his  Irish  servant  Fahy,  were  sent  under  Burke's  escort  to 
Lady  Slane's  house  and  thence  to  Dublin.2  The  rest  of  the 
Carrickmacross  prisoners  were  reserved  for  a  very  cruel  fate. 
The  Castle  Blayney  prisoners  were  lodged  for  the  first 
night  at  Carrickmacross,  and  on  the  following  day  were 
taken  on  to  Monaghan,  where  Lady  Blayney  and  her  two 
sons  were  confined  in  the  Castle  and  the  rest  in  the  common 
jail.  Monaghan  had  originally  been  captured  by  Neil 
McKenna  McMahon,  described  as  "  a  rude  and  barbarous 
young  man,"  by  the  same  ruse  as  that  adopted  by  Donnelly 
at  Dungannon,  viz.  by  a  petition  to  be  allowed  to  hunt  for 
lost  property,  and  many  were  already  in  the  small  cell 
which  acted  as  a  jail  when  the  Castle  Blayney'party  was 
thrown  in,  bringing  the  number  of  inmates  up  to  forty- 
eight.  Here  they  were  allowed  to  lie  for  many  days, 
quite  unattended  and  under  conditions  of  indescribable 
filth  and  misery.  They  were  so  closely  packed  that  they 
had  to  lie  one  on  the  top  of  the  other.'  All  would  have 

1  Bushworth.  »  Dep.  of  Mr.  Robert  Branthwaite. 

8  Dep.  of  Rev.  George  Cottingham ;  Dep.  of  Rev.  Henry  Steele. 


1641]  GLASSLOUGH  189 

died  of  starvation  but  for  the  kindly  ministrations  of 
Thomas  Taafe,  the  Irish  innkeeper  of  the  place,  who 
from  time  to  time  brought  them  such  food  as  he  could 
spare.  The  party  in  the  Castle  fared  somewhat  better, 
with  the  exception  of  poor  Richard  Blayney,  Lady  Blay- 
ney's  second  son,  who,  a  fortnight  after  his  capture,  was 
taken  out  of  the  Castle  by  Art  McBrian  Savagh  McMahon 
of  Haslough  and  hanged  in  the  orchard  at  the  back  of 
the  Castle.1  A  man  named  Luke  Ward  was  at  the  same 
time  hanged  on  a  neighbouring  tree  by  Pat  Connelly. 
The  hanging  of  Richard  Blayney  was,  we  are  told,  an 
act  of  private  revenge  on  the  part  of  Art  McBrian  Savagh 
on  account  of  the  hanging  of  his  brother  three  years 
earlier  by  Blayney's  orders.*  Sir  Phelim,  however,  after- 
wards accepted  responsibility  for  the  act. 

The  British  colonists  in  Glasslough  were  completely 
surprised  on  the  first  day  of  the  rising  by  the  sudden 
entry  into  the  town  of  a  mob  of  Irish  headed  by  Tirlough 
Oge  (Sir  Phelim's  brother)  and  Neil  McCann.  Tirlough  Oge 
at  first  tried  to  explain  the  invasion  by  pretending  that 
they  had  followed  the  tracks  of  some  sheep  which  they 
had  lost  as  far  as  the  town  *  ;  but  this  pretence  was  soon 
dropped,  and  the  aspect  of  the  mob  became  so  threatening 
that  some  fifty  or  sixty  people  took  refuge  in  the  house 
of  Mr.  Robert  Berkeley,  the  cleric  of  the  place,  and  a 
considerable  landowner,  while  a  similar  number  shut  them- 
selves up  in  the  Castle.  Both  these  strongholds  were 
approached,  and  negotiations  entered  into  for  their  sur- 
render. Neil  McCann  interviewed  Mr.  Berkeley,  while 
Tirlough  Oge  held  a  parley  with  Mr.  Nicholas  Simpson 
(joint  M.P.  for  the  county  with  Richard  Blayney),  who 
was  in  command  of  the  Castle  party.  There  was  a  com- 
plete absence  of  any  powder  in  the  town  owing  to  the 
strict  regulations,  as  to  its  issue,  which  had  been  inaugur- 
ated during  Strafford's  term  of  office  ;  and — in  view  of 
the  hopelessness  of  protracted  resistance — both  places 
were  yielded  on  condition  that  the  lives  of  the  inmates 
would  be  spared.  It  is  gratifying  to  be  able  to  record 
that  Neil  McCann  faithfully  carried  out  his  promise. 
Mr.  Berkeley  himself  was  sent  off  to  Enniskillen,  to  his 
father-in-law,  Sir  William  Cole,  and  the  rest  of  the  inmates 

1  Dep.  of  Michael  Harrison.  a  Dep.  of  Hugh  Culme. 

8  Dep.  of  Mr.  Nicholas  Simpson. 


140     DETAILS  OF  THE  RISING  IN  ULSTER  [CHAP,  v 

of  the  house  lived  thenceforward  under  the  personal 
protection  of  Neil  McCann  himself,  who  took  up  his 
residence  in  the  house,  and,  for  nine  months,  guarded  his 
charges  from  all  the  horrors  that  were  deluging  the  sur- 
rounding country  in  blood.  In  the  spring  of  1642  Sir 
Phelim  himself  visited  Glasslough  and  urged  upon  McCann 
the  extermination  of  his  prisoners,  but  without  success.1 

While  McCann  was  thus  engaged  at  Berkeley's  house, 
Tirlough  Oge,  having  stripped  the  town  of  everything  of 
value  that  it  possessed,  succeeded  in  gaining  admittance 
to  the  Castle  after  a  lengthy  conference  with  Mr.  Simpson. 
As  in  McCann's  case,  Tirlough  Oge  guaranteed  the  safety 
of  all  within  the  walls,  but  unfortunately  his  guarantee 
did  not  prove  equally  effective.  The  British  in  the 
Castle  were  kept  there  for  fourteen  days,  at  the  end  of 
which  time  Tirlough  Oge  sent  them  all,  with  the  exception 
of  Mr.  Simpson,  off  to  Monaghan  with  the  idea  of  lodging 
them  in  the  jail.  The  jail,  however,  was  found  to  be 
already  packed  far  beyond  its  capacity,  and  Art  McBrian 
Savagh,  whom  Sir  Phelim  had  appointed  Governor  of 
Monaghan,  sent  them  back  again  to  Glasslough.  At 
Glasslough  they  were  not  wanted  ;  Berkeley's  house  was 
already  full,  and  Tirlough  Oge  had  no  wish  to  crowd  up 
the  Castle,  of  which  he  had  taken  possession,  with  a 
number  of  British  prisoners.  As  the  simplest  way  out 
of  the  difficulty,  the  wretched  crowd  of  captives,  of  whom 
a  large  number  were  women  and  children,  were  sent  on 
to  Corbridge,  where  sixteen  were  drowned  that  evening 
(probably  the  men)  and  the  remaining  forty-five  next 
morning.8  Mr.  Cottingham,  the  Rector  of  Monaghan, 
who  was  one  of  the  party,  and  who  relates  the  story  (which 
is  corroborated  by  Alexander  Creichton,  a  prosperous 
farmer  in  the  neighbourhood)  was  saved  from  sharing  the 
fate  of  the  others  by  the  friendly  intervention  of  Brian 
McHugh  McMahon.  He  was  afterwards  sent  to  Drogheda 
in  exchange  for  an  Irish  prisoner.* 

1  Dep.  of  George  Twelly,  servant  to  Mr.  Berkeley. 

1  Dep.  of  Rev.  George  Cottingham ;  Dep.  of  Alexander  Creichton  and 
M.  Harrison. 

3  These  murders  were  in  all  probability  carried  out  in  accordance  with 
direct  orders  received  from  Art  McBrian  Savagh,  as  is  in  fact  stated  in  the 
deposition  of  Alexander  Creichton.  We  may  be  quite  sure  that  the 
humane  Neil  McCann  would  have  had  no  hand  in  them,  nor,  from 
what  we  know  of  Tirlough  Oge  at  this  period,  can  we  suspect  him  of 
complicity.  Art  McBrian  Savagh,  on  the  other  hand,  is  described  as  a  man 


1641]  CLONES  141 

Tirlough  Ogc  remained  in  occupation  of  Glasslough 
Castle  till  he  was  appointed  Governor  of  Armagh,  when 
he  shifted  his  quarters  to  that  place,  taking  Mr.  Simpson 
with  him. 

On  the  same  morning  on  which  Tirlough  Oge  got  pos- 
session of  Glasslough,  i.e.  on  October  23,  Loughlin  Duffey 
and  Patrick  McMahon  murdered  in  the  neighbouring 
village  of  Acrashannig  fifteen  British,  among  whom  was 
Mr.  Farmenie,  who  was  dragged  up  and  down  by  a  rope 
for  some  time  before  his  throat  was  finally  cut  with  a 
skean.1 

At  Clones  the  only  people  killed  on  the  first  day  were 
Irish.  This  town,  which  was  the  property  of  Mr.  Barret- 
Lennard,  was  entered  early  in  the  morning  by  Redmond 
McMahon  at  the  head  of  200  Irish,  who  started  pillaging 
the  town.  On  hearing  the  disturbance,  Mr.  Robert 
Aldridge  and  nine  or  ten  of  the  British  residents  in  the 
place  took  refuge  in  the  Castle,  where  they  found  some 
ancient  weapons  with  which  they  armed  themselves. 
With  these  in  their  hands,  they  sallied  forth  and  drove  the 
mob  out  of  the  town.  Three  times  was  this  performance 
repeated,  three  or  four  of  the  Irish  being  killed  in  the 
various  encounters.  Finally  Redmond  McMahon  ap- 
proached the  Castle  and  asked  for  a  parley.  He  promised 
Mr.  Aldridge  and  the  others  inside  safety  for  their  lives 
if  they  would  return  to  their  own  houses  and  deliver  up 
the  Castle.  This  was  finally  agreed  to,  and  McMahon 
took  possession  of  the  Castle,  which  he  occupied  from 
that  time  on,  content  for  the  moment  to  dominate  the 
town  and  such  of  the  British  as  remained  in  it.  These, 
beyond  being  stripped  of  all  their  valuables,  were  not  in- 
terfered with  for  the  first  month.  At  the  end  of  November, 

who  delighted  in  demoniacal  cruelty  (see  examination  of  Nicholas  Coombe). 
Judge  Donellan,  in  his  address  at  Sir  Phelim's  trial,  gave  the  following 
description  of  a  feast  at  which  the  Governor  of  Monaghan  presided: 
"  At  Monaghan,  at  a  great  festival,  what  sport  had  they  at  their  feast  T 
An  Englishman  was  laid  before  them  on  the  board,  and  at  every  health 
they  stabbed  him  with  a  skean.  And  they  drink,  and  he  bleeds,  and  they 
drink  again,  and  presently,  when  he  is  all  one  wound,  he  is  cast  out  on  a 
dunghill."  Art  McBrian  Savagh  would  naturally  be  embittered  against 
the  English,  for— apart  from  the  hanging  of  his  brother  by  Blayney  already 
alluded  to— his  father  had  been  killed  in  open  rebellion  in  1609,  and  Fitz- 
william  had  executed  his  uncle  Hugh  Roe  McMahon  in  1 59 1 .  Art  Me  Brian 
Savagh  was  generally  supposed  to  be  mad,  and  is  said  to  have  died  quite 
insane. 

1  Dep.  of  Margaret  Farmenie ;  Dep.  of  Margaret  Laidlaw. 


142     DETAILS  OF  THE  RISING  IN  ULSTER  [CHAP,  v 

however,  after  the  Irish  defeat  at  Lisburn,  and  the  general 
retaliatory  massacres  which  ensued,  Pat  Connelly  and 
Patrick  Oge  Maguire  arrived  one  morning  with  a  strong 
force  of  Irish  and  arrested  twenty  Englishmen,  whom 
they  imprisoned  in  the  church.  There  they  were  kept  for 
a  week,  in  all  probability  till  instructions  as  to  their 
disposal  had  been  received  from  headquarters.  At  the 
end  of  the  week  sixteen  of  the  men  were  taken  out  of 
the  church  one  night  and  hanged  on  the  church  gate. 
The  other  four  had  managed  to  effect  their  escape  by 
climbing  out  of  a  small  window  set  high  up  in  the  wall. 
One  other  man,  and  a  woman  who  had  just  arrived  in 
Clones  with  a  letter  addressed  to  Mr.  Aldridge,  were 
hanged  at  the  same  time.1  Next  day  sixteen  British  women 
and  children  were  drowned  in  a  turf-pit  near  the  town.8 
Mr.  Charles  Campbell,  one  of  the  many  who  deposed  to 
the  hangings  on  the  church  gate,  actually  had  the  withy 
round  his  own  neck,  but  was  saved  at  the  last  moment 
by  Rory  McMahon  and  his  wife. 

Satisfied  with  the  measure  of  vengeance  exacted  by 
these  murders,  the  Irish  appear  to  have  left  Clones  alone 
for  the  next  five  months,  but,  at  the  end  of  April  1642, 
two  Irishmen  named  John  McHenry  and  Edmund  McDonnel 
came  to  Clones  and  secretly  warned  Mr.  Aldridge  that, 
as  the  result  of  a  meeting  of  all  the  Ulster  leaders  at 
Killeevan,  a  decree  had  been  issued  that  all  the  surviving 
colonists  in  Ulster  were  to  be  killed  forthwith.  Upon 
receipt  of  this  warning,  Aldridge  and  thirteen  of  the 
other  British  from  the  town  set  out,  in  company  with 
McHenry  and  McDonnel,  for  Enniskillen,  which  they 
reached  in  safety,  and  where  the  whole  party — including 
the  two  Irishmen — stayed  till  the  troubles  were  over. 
Of  those  who  remained  behind  it  is  doubtful  whether  any 
escaped.  The  following  Clones  residents,  in  any  case, 
fell  in  the  general  massacre :  Robert  Johnson,  Ensign 
Flood  and  four  servants,  Roger  Leitch,  Edmond  Leitch, 
Roger  Edwards,  his  son  and  a  servant,  Robert  Workman, 
his  son  and  a  servant  of  whom  the  latter  was  buried  alive,1 
William  Teddar,  James  Whitehead,  Michael  Allen,  William 
Gilscross,  George  Whitaker,  Thomas  Whitaker,  James 

1  Dep.  of  Mr.  Robert  Aldridge. 

1  Depositions  of  Francis  Winn,  James  Gowen,  Henry  Beaumont,  Honors 
Beaumont,  Charles  Campbell.  3  Dep.  of  John  Montgomery. 


1641]  RORY  MAGUIRE'S  DINNER  AT  CREVENISH  148 

Dungeon,  Richard  Bingham,  Miles  Acres,  Thomas  Sar- 
geant,  Mongy  Tibs,  Henry  Cross,  Joseph  Cross,  Peter 
Madison,  Sebastian  Cottingham,  James  Birney,  William 
Foster  and  John  Netterville.  The  last  named,  who  was 
proctor  to  the  minister,  was  singled  out  for  specially 
brutal  treatment,  being  disembowelled  alive.1  In  these 
May  massacres  the  Scottish  ministers,  and  all  who  were 
in  any  way  connected  with  them,  were  treated  with  ex- 
ceptional cruelty,  after  having  been  so  far  spared.  The 
reason  for  this  sudden  change  of  attitude  towards  the 
ministers  will  presently  be  apparent. 

In  the  county  of  Fermanagh,  Rory  Maguire  of  Castle- 
hasen,  a  dissipated  young  man  of  twenty-two  and  a  brother 
of  Lord  Maguire,  had,  previous  to  the  outbreak,  made  an 
attempt  to  facilitate  the  capture  of  Enniskillen  and  the 
other  principal  Castles  in  Fermanagh  by  inviting  all 
their  owners  to  a  dinner  at  Crevenish  Castle  in  the  Barony 
of  Lurgh,  which  had  come  into  his  possession  through 
his  marriage  with  the  widow  of  Sir  Leonard  Blennerhasset. 
Maguire's  intention  was  to  seize  the  persons  of  all  his  guests 
on  their  arrival  and  hold  them  in  ransom  for  the  surrender 
of  their  several  Castles.  Sir  William  Cole  of  Enniskillen  was 
one  of  the  first  to  arrive  at  Crevenish  in  response  to  this 
invitation,  and,  as  he  dismounted,  the  man  who  took  his 
horse  whispered  in  his  ear  that  he  would  have  his  horse 
ready  in  ten  minutes.  The  hint,  though  vague,  was 
sufficient,  and  Sir  William  promptly  galloped  off,  keeping 
on  the  grass  by  the  side  of  the  avenue  so  as  to  deaden 
the  sounds  of  his  horse's  hoofs.  The  other  guests  must 
clearly  have  had  some  similar  warning,  for  they  managed 
to  break  out  in  a  body,  regain  their  horses,  and  hurriedly 
made  for  home.8  It  may  be  that  fury  at  the  failure  of 
this  plot  was  in  some  measure  responsible  for  Rory's 
subsequent  conduct.  In  any  case  he  stands  out,  from 
the  very  first  day  of  the  outbreak,  as  one  of  the  most 
treacherous  and  inhuman  ruffians  that  the  rising  was 
destined  to  bring  to  the  surface. 

The  county  of  Fermanagh  should  have  been,  even  if  it 
was  not,  in  an  especially  favoured  position  with  regard 
to  the  rising,  on  account  of  the  early  warning  which 
Sir  William  Cole  had  received  of  the  intentions  of  the 


1  Dep.  of  James  Geare. 

1  Ulster  Journal  of  Archaeology,  1894,  vol.  iv. 


11 


144     DETAILS  OF  THE  RISING  IN  ULSTER  [CHAP,  v 

Irish.  The  first  warning  of  the  intended  rising  had  come 
to  him  through  Brian  Maguire  of  Tempo  on  October  11, 
but  further  and  more  detailed  particulars  from  the  same 
source  reached  him  on  October  21,  i.e.  two  days  before 
the  date  fixed  for  the  rising.  It  would  appear  that  it 
was  only  after  this  second  warning,  which  must  have 
been  subsequent  to  the  Crevenish  affair,  that  Cole  began 
to  realise  the  gravity  of  the  situation.  According  to  his 
own  statement,  he  had  no  sooner  received  the  second 
warning  than  he  despatched  eighteen  horsemen  to  warn 
all  the  principal  British  centres  in  Ulster.  This  statement 
was  afterwards  challenged  by  Sir  Frederic  Hamilton, 
who  denied  that  any  message  from  Sir  William  had  reached 
Derry  (where  Sir  Frederic  was  at  the  time)  and  seriously 
questioned  whether  Sir  William  had  succeeded  in  warning 
any  single  town  in  Ulster.  Hamilton  accused  Cole  of 
gross  selfishness  in  having  devoted  all  his  energies  to  his 
own  preservation,  and  in  having  neglected  to  warn  his 
fellow  countrymen  in  Ulster  of  the  grave  peril  which 
threatened  them.1 

Cole's  reply  was  that  he  had  no  certainty  of  the  intended 
rising  till  the  21st ;  that  he  was  cut  off  by  forty  miles  of 
enemy  country  from  the  other  British  centres,  and  that 
his  first  duty  was  the  protection  of  his  neighbours  and  of 
the  British  agricultural  population  within  reach  of  Ennis- 
killen.  Nevertheless,  he  maintained  his  assertion  that  he 
had  sent  eighteen  horsemen  to  carry  the  warning  to  every 
corner  of  Ulster.  The  controversy  between  the  two  knights 
became  finally  so  acrimonious  that  their  disputes  were 
submitted  to  both  Houses  of  Parliament,  a  fortunate  cir- 
cumstance, which  has  furnished  the  historian  with  much 
valuable  information.  Sir  Frederic  Hamilton  was,  from 
all  accounts,  a  man  of  somewhat  brutal  disposition  and  of 
an  insolent  and  overbearing  manner.  He  was  universally 
unpopular  with  all  parties,  and  his  accusations  against 
Sir  William  Cole  may  therefore,  in  part,  be  ascribed  to 
jealousy  and  spleen.  All  the  same,  the  incontestable  fact 
stands  out  that  none  of  the  neighbouring  centres,  such  as 
Glasslough,  Clones,  Newry,  Tandaragee,  Monaghan  or 
Charlemont  received  any  warning  of  the  intended  rising. 
All  these  places  were  completely  taken  by  surprise,  in  spite 

i  See  Information  of  Sir  Frederic  Hamilton,  Vindication  of  Sir  William 
Cole,  and  Remonstrance  of  Sir  Frederic  Hamilton. 


1641]     COLE  AND  HAMILTON  CONTROVERSY       145 

of  the  eighteen  horsemen  whom  Cole  claimed  to  have  sent 
out.  Derry,  Newtownstewart,  Lisburn  and  Carrickfergus, 
and  in  fact  all  the  northern  centres  which  were  able  to 
put  themselves  in  a  posture  of  defence,  received  their 
warnings  through  other  means  than  those  of  Sir  William 
Cole,  and  in  every  case  after  the  outbreak  farther  south 
had  materialised.  On  the  other  hand,  Cole's  dispositions 
for  defence  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  Enniskillen 
were  praiseworthy  in  the  extreme.  The  scattered  British 
colonists  from  the  country  round,  to  the  number  of  several 
thousands,  were  safely  gathered  into  Enniskillen.  From 
among  the  able-bodied  men  collected  in  this  way,  Cole  was 
able  to  raise,  and  partially  arm,  nine  companies  of  foot 
and  a  troop  of  horse.1  As  to  the  women,  children,  and  old 
men,  he  claimed  that  "  he  did  rescue  from  the  rebels  5,647 
English  and  Scottish  Protestants,  and  relieved  them  for 
many  months  out  of  the  spoil  taken  from  the  enemy,  until 
that,  in  his  own  person,  he  guarded  and  conveyed  them 
towards  Derry,"  *  handing  them  over  half-way  to  the 
charge  of  the  Lagan  Force,  who  escorted  them  in  safety 
the  remainder  of  the  way. 

It  would  seem  as  though  Rory  Maguire — who,  as  Lord 
Maguire's  brother,  assumed  charge  of  affairs  in  Fermanagh 
from  the  start — contented  himself  on  the  23rd  with  mur- 
dering isolated  families  more  especially  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  Markane  and  Lowtherstown.  At  the  latter  place 
Anne  Blennerhasset  tells  us  that  Rory  first  hanged  her 
son-in-law,  Thomas  Redman,  and  then  cruelly  tortured 
Mrs.  Redman  to  make  her  confess  her  money.  Having 
succeeded  in  his  purpose,  he  then  murdered  Mrs.  Redman 
and  all  her  children.* 

The  providential  warning  which  the  British  in  the  county 
of  Fermanagh  had  received  of  the  intentions  of  the  Irish, 
though  it  prevented  anything  in  the  nature  of  a  surprise 
of  the  more  important  Castles,  by  no  means  offered  com- 
plete checkmate  to  Rory's  plans.  He  easily  overcame  the 
initial  disadvantage  under  which  he  laboured  in  comparison 
with  the  neighbouring  counties  by  assuming  the  r61e  of 
the  personal  friend  and  neighbour  forced  by  circumstances 
to  appear  as  a  political  enemy.  That  he  was  on  terms  of 

1  On  July  1,  1649,  500  of  these  men  were  taken  into  parliamentary 
pay  ;  the  remainder  were  disbanded. 

a  Answer  and  Vindication  of  Sir  Wm.  Cole. 
•  Dep.  of  Anne  Blennerhasset. 


146    DETAILS  OF  THE  RISING  IN  ULSTER   [CHAP.  V 

intimate  friendship  with  all  the  British  gentry  in  the 
county  is  proved  by  their  general  acceptance  of  his  invi- 
tation to  dine  at  Crevenish.  He  was  Member  of  Parliament 
for  the  county  of  Fermanagh,  and  was  moreover'  married 
to  an  Englishwoman  of  considerable  means.1 

Early  on  the  morning  of  the  24th  Rory  commenced 
playing  his  part  of  the  friendly  neighbour.  The  first  place 
which  he  approached  was  Shannoth  House,  near  Clones, 
the  property  of  Mr.  Arthur  Champion,  Member  of  Parlia- 
ment for  Enniskillen.  There  was  clearly  no  opposition 
offered  on  this  occasion  by  the  inmates,  and  various  indica- 
tions point  to  the  fact  that  Maguire  gained  admittance  by 
assuming  the  r&le  of  a  friendly  mediator.  Once  inside,  how- 
ever, he  quickly  discarded  this  attitude,  and  came  out  in  his 
true  light  as  a  cold-blooded  butcher  of  inoffensive  country 
neighbours.  He  started  by  hanging  Arthur  Champion 
and  his  brother  Thomas,  and  followed  this  up  by  murdering 
in  a  variety  of  ways  Thomas  Iremonger,  Humphrey  Little- 
bury,  Christopher  Lynch,  John  Morris,  Hugh  Williams, 
Henry  Cross  and  James  Cross,  and  twenty-four  others  who 
are  not  named.  No  women  or  children  were  killed  on  this 
occasion,  but  they  were  all  stripped  to  the  skin,  after  which 
some  few  were  kept  as  prisoners  and  the  rest  turned  out 
naked  into  the  cold.8 

In  addition  to  the  evidence  of  Mrs.  Champion  as  to  this 
^outrage,  we  have  the  testimony  of  John  Cormack,  a  local 
Irishman,  who,  in  his  evidence  at  Sir  Phelim's  trial,  swore 
that  "  the  next  day  {i.e.  24th]  Rory  Maguire  marched 
away  and  killed  and  destroyed  most  of  the  English  that 
were  in  those  parts,  murdering  Arthur  Champion,  Esquire, 
and  many  more."  * 

From  Shannoth,  Maguire  went  on  to  Waterdrum,  which 
was  not  reached  till  12  o'clock  at  night.  The  lateness  of 
the  hour,  however,  was  no  deterrent  to  Maguire,  who  at 
once  signalised  his  arrival  by  killing  Thomas  and  John 
Adams,  Joseph  and  William  Berry,  and  Sarah  Brent,  the 
last-named,  who  was  about  to  become  a  mother,  being 
ripped  open  with  a  skean.  Ellen  Adams  and  her  daugh- 

1  Lady  Blennerhasset's  estate  was  worth  £900  a  year  (Ulster  Journal 
of  Archaeology). 

*  Dep.  of  Mrs.  Champion.  Thomas  Iremonger  was  flung  on  to  a  wooden 
table  and  his  head  chopped  off  with  a  hatchet  in  the  presence  of  his  wife 
and  children.  See  An  Accompt  of  the  Bloody  Massacre  in  Ireland. 

3  Dep.  of  John  Cormack. 


1641]  RORY  MAGUIRE'S  TREACHERY  147 

ter  escaped  with  their  lives,  but  were  both  cruelly 
mutilated.1 

On  the  following  morning  Maguire  rode  to  Lisnaskea, 
"  where  he  desired  in  a  friendly  manner  to  speak  with 
Master  Middleton,  who  had  the  keeping  of  the  Castle.  The 
first  thing  he  did  when  he  entered  therein  was  to  burn  the 
records  of  the  county,  which  he  forced  him  to  deliver  unto 
him,  as  likewise  £1,000,  which  he  had  in  his  hands,  of  Sir 
William  Balfour's,  which — as  soon  as  he  had — he  compelled 
the  said  Middleton  to  hear  Mass,  swear  never  to  alter  from  it, 
and  immediately  after  caused  himself,  his  wife,  and  chil- 
dren to  be  hanged  up,  and  he  hanged  and  murdered  a 
hundred  persons  at  least  besides  in  that  town."  * 

The  news  of  the  above  bloody  deeds  had  by  this  time 
reached  the  ears  of  the  colonists  on  the  south  side  of  Lough 
Erne,  and  a  number  of  these  banded  together  for  defence 
under  the  leadership  of  Mr.  Cathcart,  the  Sheriff.  For  a 
time  they  were  able  to  stave  off  an  attack  in  the  open, 
but  the  overwhelming  numbers  of  the  Irish  finally  forced 
them  to  the  shelter  of  Enniskillen,  where  they  joined  Sir 
William  Cole's  defence  force.* 

In  pleasing  contrast  to  Rory  Maguire's  treachery  and 
cruelty  was  the  courage  and  loyalty  of  his  uncle,  Brian 
Maguire,  of  Tempo.  Although  this  good  man  had 
successfully  warned  Sir  William  Cole,  it  appears  that  he 
was  by  no  means  in  the  full  confidence  of  the  rebels,  and, 
in  fact,  only  learnt  of  the  intentions  of  the  Irish  by 
the  chance  remark  of  a  priest  who  was  visiting  him.*  His 
good  services  did  not  stop  short  at  warning  the  colonists, 
for  one  of  his  first  acts  was  to  garrison  Roger  Atkinson's 
house  in  Coole  with  a  number  of  his  own  men,  who  success- 
fully protected  that  Servitor  and  all  his  people  from  peril.5 
Such  conduct  did  not  by  any  means  please  Rory,  who  came 
to  Tempo  and  threatened  his  uncle  with  death  if  he  did  not 
swear  to  join  them.  Brian  was  granted  three  days  in 
which  to  make  up  his  mind,  and  he  wisely  took  advantage 
of  the  opportunity  to  make  his  escape  to  Enniskillen,  where 
he  remained  thenceforward.  His  son,  Hugh,  joined  the 
rebels.  Brian's  depositions  as  to  the  massacres  are  of 

1  Dep.  of  Ellen  Adams. 

•  Dep.  of  Sir  John  Dunbar,  J.P.     The  murder  of  victims  in  this  case  IB 
probably  exaggerated. 

3   "Relation"  of  Audley  Mervyn. 

*  Dep.  of  Brian  Maguire.          6  Information  of  Sir  Fredeno  Hamilton. 


148     DETAILS  OF  THE  RISING  IN  ULSTER  [CHAP,  v 

unique  value  owing  to  his  nationality  and  to  the  closeness 
of  his  relations  with  those  responsible  for  them.  After 
the  tide  had  turned  and  the  ministers  of  vengeance  were 
abroad — not  always  in  the  mood  to  discriminate  nicely — 
Sir  William  Cole  was  able  to  requite  Brian's  services  by 
protecting  him,  and  some  fifty  or  sixty  of  his  tenants,  from 
the  fury  of  the  avengers. 

On  the  whole,  Fermanagh  may  be  considered  as  one  of 
the  most  fortunate  counties  in  Ulster,  on  account  of  the 
early  warning  which  it  had  received,  and  of  the  protecting 
strength  of  Enniskillen  Castle,  which — in  combination  with 
Ballyshannon  just  over  the  border — was  able  to  shelter 
several  thousands  of  the  British  from  the  fury  of  Maguire's 
cut-throat  bands.  John  Cormack's  estimate  was  that  the 
total  number  massacred  in  the  county  of  Fermanagh  did 
not  exceed  764. 


CHAPTER   VI 

THE   REBELLION   IN   CAVAN 

THE  position  in  Co.  Cavan  differed  essentially  from  that 
of  any  other  county  in  Ulster.  The  difference  was  due 
in  the  main  to  the  more  humane  and  civilised  conduct 
of  the  O'Reillys,  who  set  their  faces  from  the  start  against 
anything  in  the  nature  of  cold-blooded  butchery,  and  who 
faithfully  kept  all  compacts  made  with  beleaguered  garri- 
sons within  the  limits  of  their  jurisdiction.  The  object  of 
the  O'Reillys  was  admittedly  to  clear  their  county  of  all 
the  British,  and  to  confiscate  all  British  lands,  money, 
plate,  valuables,  and  even  clothes,  but  to  do  so  as  far  as 
possible  without  bloodshed.  With  this  intention  before 
him,  Philip  McHugh  O'Reilly,  of  Ballinacarrig,  the  Member 
for  the  county,  rode  into  Belturbet  early  on  the  morning 
of  the  23rd,  and  publicly  made  the  announcement  that  the 
Irish  had  risen,  that  Dublin  Castle  and  all  the  principal 
strongholds  in  Ireland  were  in  their  hands,  and  that  all 
English  were  at  once  to  leave  the  country  or  suffer  death. 
While  Philip  McHugh  O'Reilly  was  thus  engaged  at  Bel- 
turbet, his  nephew,  Mulmore  O'Reilly,  High  Sheriff  of  the 
county,  rode  to  Farnham  Castle,  the  property  of  Sir  Thomas 
Waldrum,  who  was  away  at  the  time,  and  there  possessed 
himself  of  everything  the  Castle  contained,  including  com- 
plete sets  of  arms  and  armour  for  forty  men,  with  which  he 
proceeded  to  equip  his  retinue.1 

Philip  O'Reilly's  announcement  at  Belturbet  created,  as 
may  be  supposed,  the  most  prodigious  excitement.  Bel- 
turbet, which  was  reckoned  to  contain  no  fewer  than  1,500 
British,*  was  by  far  the  most  thickly  populated  colony  in 
the  county,  and  on  that  account  had  been  selected  by 
O'Reilly  for  his  proclamation.  From  this  centre  the  news 
spread  out  far  and  wide,  and,  as  the  day  advanced,  news 
came  across  the  border  of  Rory  Maguire's  butcheries  in 

*  Pep.  of  Arthur  Culme.  •  "Relation"  of  Henry  Jones,  D.D, 


150  THE  REBELLION  IN  CAVAN  [CHAP,  vi 

Fermanagh,  and  the  agitation  of  the  British  was  corre- 
spondingly increased.  Public  opinion  was  quickly  divided. 
On  the  one  side  was  the  pacifist  party,  strongly  in  favour 
of  compliance  with  O'Reilly's  terms,  and  on  the  other  hand 
the  war  party,  which  was  for  resisting  the  insolent  demands 
of  the  Irish  to  the  last  gasp.  The  aims  of  the  latter  party 
were  strengthened  by  the  arrival  of  an  express  messenger 
from  Sir  Francis  Hamilton,  of  Keilagh  (Castle  Hamilton), 
urging  all  the  Belturbet  British,  as  they  valued  their  lives, 
to  arm  themselves  and  concentrate  for  resistance.  This 
advice  was  vehemently  seconded  by  Captain  Ryves,  who 
was  stationed  in  Belturbet  in  command  of  a  troop  of  thirty 
horse  ;  and  with  such  good  effect  did  he  plead  that,  when 
Philip  O'Reilly  returned  to  Belturbet  in  the  evening,  he 
found  the  townsmen  brandishing  such  weapons  as  they 
had  been  able  to  get  together,  and  greatly  inclined  towards 
armed  resistance.  To  this  excited  throng  O'Reilly  ad- 
dressed smooth  and — literally — disarming  words.  He 
assured  them  that  Rory  Maguire's  murders  in  the  adjoining 
county  were  contrary  to  the  understanding  arrived  at  by  the 
various  Ulster  chiefs  prior  to  the  rising.  He  assured  them 
solemnly  that,  if  they  would  give  up  their  arms  to  him, 
he  would  undertake  to  protect  them  all  from  Maguire's  fury, 
otherwise  he  warned  them  that  he  could  not  answer  for  their 
lives.1  To  these  apparently  friendly  overtures  the  bulk  of 
the  British  finally  yielded  and  handed  in  their  weapons, 
whereat  Captain  Ryves,  in  great  disgust,  washed  his  hands 
of  the  Belturbet  British  and  their  affairs,  and  rode  off  with 
his  thirty  men  to  Ardbraccan,  where  he  took  up  his  quarters 
in  the  Bishop  of  Meath's  Castle.* 

No  sooner  had  the  British  given  up  their  arms  than  the 
Irish  fell  upon  them  and  stripped  them  to  the  skin.  The 
disillusioned  colonists  bitterly  reproached  O'Reilly  .for  his 
breach  of  faith,  and  called  upon  him  to  protect  them,  as 
he  had  promised  to  do,  from  the  robbery  and  violence  of 
his  followers  ;  but  he  replied  to  the  effect  that  the  people 
were  so  out  of  hand  that  he  could  do  nothing  with  them, 
and  advised  them,  if  they  would  save  their  lives,  to  make 
for  Dublin  with  all  speed. 

It  would  appear  that  it  was  not  till  the  morning  of  the 
25th  that  the  Belturbet  refugees  set  out.     Mr.   George 
Creichton,  who  was  a  prisoner  in  Virginia,  Co.    Cavan, 
1  Ferdinando  Warner,  p.  75.        *  "Relation"  of  Henry  Jones,  D.D. 


1641]        PLIGHT  OF  THE  CAVAN  REFUGEES          151 

deposed  that  on  that  day  he  saw  "  440  stripped  refugees 
come  through  Virginia,  some  of  them  sore  wounded. 
Afterwards  many  more  came  from  about  Ballyhayes, 
and  afterwards  1,400  from  Belturbet."  l  This  would  seem 
to  fix  the  exodus  from  Belturbet  at  not  earlier  than  the 
25th.  As  to  the  other  batches  seen  by  Creichton  we 
know  nothing. 

O'Reilly  had  told  the  Belturbet  people  that  they  might 
take  any  goods  they  liked  with  them.*  This,  however,  as 
it  turned  out,  was  merely  a  device  to  make  them  produce 
such  valuables  as  they  had  hidden,  for,  when  the  pro- 
cession was  a  short  distance  beyond  the  town  of  Cavan, 
it  was  once  more  set  upon  by  a  mob,  which,  Nathaniel  Hig- 
ginson  in  his  deposition  says,  was  not  composed  of  Cavan 
men,  but  of  invaders  from  Fermanagh.  That  there  was 
considerable  bloodshed  on  this  occasion  is  certain.  All 
were  for  the  second  time  robbed  and  stripped  to  the  skin. 
A  man  named  Adam  Glover,  who  was  one  of  the  party,  after- 
wards swore  that  no  less  than  thirty  were  killed.  His 
deposition  was  to  the  effect  that  "  he  observed  30  persons 
to  be  most  barbarously  murdered,  and  about  150  more 
cruelly  wounded,  so  that  traces  of  blood,  issuing  from  them, 
lay  upon  the  highway  for  twelve  miles  together.  And  many 
very  young  children  were  left  and  perished  by  the  way, 
to  the  number  of  sixty  or  thereabouts,  because  the  cruelty 
of  the  rebels  was  such  that  their  parents  and  friends  could 
not  carry  them  farther."  3 

The  hardships  endured  by  those  who  succeeded  in  reach- 
ing Dublin  were  very  severe.  The  weather  was  intensely 
cold  for  the  time  of  year,  and,  in  their  naked  condition, 
many  contracted  diseases  from  which  they  never  recovered. 
Their  plight  on  arriving  in  Dublin  was  little  less  pitiable 
than  it  had  been  on  the  journey,  for  the  city  was  hopelessly 
overcrowded.  During  the  first,  ten  days  of  the  rising  a 
constant  stream  of  starved,  wounded  and  naked  wretches 
flowed  into  the  metropolis,  where  there  was  no  adequate 
shelter  available.  They  were  housed,  as  far  as  circum- 
stances would  permit,  in  the  churches ;  but,  even  so,  the 
accommodation  afforded  was  far  short  of  the  demand,  and 
numbers  had  to  lie  about  in  the  streets.  Many  went  mad. 

1  Examination  of  the  Rev.  George  Creichton. 

*  Dep.  of  Mr.  Parker,  Rector  of  Belturbet. 

3  Dep.  of  Nathaniel  Higginson;  Dep.  of  Adam  Glover. 


152  THE  REBELLION  IN  CAVAN          [CHAP,  vi 

"  Multitudes,"  we  are  told,  died.  New  pieces  of  ground 
had  to  be  opened  for  their  burial.  The  grave-diggers 
could  not  keep  pace  with  the  mortality,  and  the  number 
of  unburied  bodies  generated  new  and  strange  diseases.1 
In  the  meanwhile,  the  more  venturesome  spirits,  who 
had  not  joined  the  caravan  to  Dublin,  but  had  elected 
to  remain  in  Co.  Cavan,  were  undergoing  an  unpleasant 
ordeal.  Some  200  of  them  had  taken  refuge  in  the  house 
of  William  Bedell,  Bishop  of  Kilmore.8  This  remarkable 
man  was  held  in  universal  reverence  on  account  of  the 
saintliness  of  his  life,  and  it  was  hoped — and  with  justice 
— that  his  house  would  prove  a  sanctuary,  which  none 
would  violate.  Here  the  refugees  remained  in  security, 
but  great  discomfort,  till  the  latter  half  of  December, 
when  Edmund  O'Reilly  of  Killnacrot  and  his  son  Mulmore 
rode  up  one  day  and  told  them  that  they  were  no  longer 
safe,  and  must  make  immediate  preparations  for  a  journey 
to  Dublin.  This  warning,  as  it  afterwards  turned  out, 
was  issued  on  account  of  the  insensate  fury  of  Sir  Phelim 
and  Rory  Maguire  after  their  defeat  at  Augher  in  Co. 
Tyrone.  Both  had  issued  orders  for  wholesale  massacres. 
Sir  Phelim's  orders  were  carried  out  by  proxy,  but  Rory 
conducted  his  retaliatory  massacres  in  person.  Except 
for  the  friendly  warning  of  the  O'Reillys,  the  inmates 
of  the  Bishop's  house  would  have  run  a  very  grave  danger 
of  sharing  the  dreadful  fate  of  the  refugees  in  Lisgool, 
Tully  and  Monea.  Warned  in  time,  however,  they  set 
out  towards  the  south.  On  the  first  night  Mulmore 
sheltered  them  all  at  his  own  house  at  Cavet,  and  the 
following  morning  forwarded  them  on  their  road  under 
the  guidance  and  protection  of  a  friendly  priest,  who 
did  his  utmost  to  protect  them  from  the  ferocity  of  the 
natives,  but  without  complete  success.  The  Bishop 
himself,  with  his  son  Ambrose,  Richard  Castleton,  a  car- 
penter, and  Mr.  Edward  Parker,  the  Rector  of  Belturbet, 
were  taken  to  Arthur  Culme's  Castle  in  Lough  Oughter, 
now  in  the  hands  of  the  rebels,  where  they  joined  the 
late  owner  and  his  wife  and  children  as  prisoners.  Here 
they  were  placed  in  charge  of  Owen  McTirlough  O'Reilly, 
a  humane  and  considerate  man,  who  did  all  he  could  for 
his  captives.  Many  of  the  windows  in  the  Castle,  however, 

1  Temple's  Rebellion, 

»  Kilmore,  in  Co.  Cavan,  not  to  be  confused  with  the  parish  of  the  same 
uame  in  Co.  Armagh.  _, 


1641]  DEATH  OF  BISHOP  BEDELL  153 

had  no  glass,  and  the  cold  winds  off  the  lake  proved  too 
much  for  the  strength  of  the  old  Bishop,  who  became 
very  ill.  On  January  7,  after  a  successful  sally  from 
Keilagh  Castle,  in  the  course  of  which  some  O'Rourkes 
and  O'Reillys  were  taken  prisoners,  the  Bishop  was  ex- 
changed for  Philip  O'Reilly,  uncle  to  Philip  McHugh, 
and  was  then  removed  to  the  house  of  a  friendly  Irish- 
man named  Denis  Sheridan,  who  was  a  Protestant  con- 
vert;  but  he  had  contracted  ailments  from  which  he 
never  recovered,  and  on  February  7  he  died.  His  funeral, 
which  was  of  a  semi-military  order,  was  attended  by 
Edmund  O'Reilly,  his  son  Mulmore,  and  by  several  of 
the  Sheridans  of  Co.  Cavan.1 

With  the  departure  of  Captain  Ryves,  Belturbet  had 
been  deprived  of  the  last  of  its  trained  soldiers.  In  the 
town  of  Cavan,  however,  Captain  John  Bailey  had  com- 
mand of  a  company  of  fifty  foot-soldiers,  of  whom  half 
were  Irish.  With  these  he  shut  himself  up  in  the  jail, 
which  was  the  strongest  building  in  the  town ;  but,  being 
very  short  of  provisions,  he  was  in  no  condition  to  endure 
a  sustained  siege,  and  on  October  29  he  surrendered 
to  the  O'Reillys.  He  and  his  men  were  well  treated. 
The  rank  and  file  were  stripped  of  their  arms,  but  Bailey 
himself  and  a  few  of  the  principals  were  allowed  to  retain 
their  arms  for  self-protection,  and  to  live  at  large  in  a 
small  thatched  cottage  in  the  town.8  From  this  precarious 
position  they  were  soon  after  relieved  by  Sir  Francis 
Hamilton,  who  sent  out  a  reserve  party  from  Keilagh 
Castle  under  the  command  of  his  son  Malcolm,  David 
Creichton  and  James  Somerville,  who  brought  Bailey  and 
his  companions  safely  in. 

The  achievements  of  Sir  Francis  Hamilton  of  Keilagh, 
and  of  Sir  James  Craig  of  Croughan,  furnished  excellent 
illustrations  of  what  could  have  been  done  all  over  Ulster, 
had  the  British  been  given  time  to  concentrate  at  suitable 
places  of  strength.  Whether  or  not  Hamilton  and  Craig 
had  been  warned  by  Sir  William  Cole  is  not  clear,  but  the 
strong  probability  is  that  they  had,  for  otherwise  it  would 
have  been  impossible  for  them  to  have  collected  the 
numbers  who  found  refuge  within  their  castle  walls. 

i  Dep.  of  Arthur  Culme ;  Dep.  of  Ambrose  Bedell.  Ambrose  Bedell  tella 
us  that  his  father  had  lent  over  £1,000  to  various  members  of  the  O'Reilly 
and  Sheridan  families. 

I  «' Relation"  of  Henry  Jones,  D.D. 


154  THE  REBELLION  IN  CAVAN          [CHAP,  vi 

The  warning,  however,  must  have  arrived  very  late,  for 
it  was  not  till  the  evening  of  the  23rd  that  Hamilton  was 
able  to  pass  it  on  to  Belturbet. 

The  Castles  of  Keilagh  and  Croughan  stood  about  a 
mile  apart,  with  the  village  of  Killesandra  between,  and 
with  one  of  the  innumerable  ramifications  of  Lough  Erne 
separating  one  from  the  other.  Both  Castles  proved 
harbours  of  refuge  for  all  the  British  families  in  their 
neighbourhood.  By  the  time  the  first  attack  came, 
there  were  collected  within  the  walls  of  Keilagh  no  less 
than  286  able-bodied  men  and  700  women,  children  and 
old  men.  Croughan,  which  was  smaller,  was  able  to 
accommodate  120  able-bodied  men  and  340  women, 
children  and  pld  men. 

The  first  attack  on  the  two  Castles  came  from  Edmund 
O'Reilly,  at  the  head  of  an  army  of  2,000  men,  composed 
in  equal  parts  of  men  from  Cavan  and  Leitrim.  His 
first  attempt  was  on  Croughan,  as  being  the  weaker  of 
the  two  ;  but  he  was  repulsed  with  the  loss  of  fourteen  men. 
Encouraged  by  the  ease  with  which  he  had  beaten  off 
this  formidable  array,  Sir  James  Craig  managed  to  send 
a  messenger  across  to  Keilagh  suggesting  that,  on  the 
night  following,  a  simultaneous  sally  should  be  made 
from  both  Castles.  To  this  Sir  Francis  Hamilton 
agreed.  "  Whereupon,"  Mr.  Clogy  tells  us,  "  they  fixed 
all  their  scythes  upon  long  poles,  and,  being  very  scarce 
of  ammunition l  (though  they  had  guns  enough),  they 
resolved  to  sally  forth  out  of  both  their  Castles  and  to 
make  a  resolute  assault  upon  the  enemy's  camp  on  a 
frosty  night ;  which  they  did  perform  with  such  irresistible 
courage  and  good  success  that  they  made  such  foul  work 
and  havoc  among  them,  that  such  persons  as  were  not 
cut  in  pieces  or  mangled  with  these  terrible  weapons, 
were  either  taken  prisoners  or  forced  to  run  away  and 
leave  their  camp  as  it  was."  To  this  account  of  Mr. 
Clogy's,  Dr.  Jones  adds  the  information  that  thirty- 
seven  of  the  Irish  were  killed  in  the  sally,  and  that  three 
of  the  O'Rourkes,  viz.  Loughlin,  Brian  and  Owen, 
together  with  Philip  O'Reilly,  uncle  to  Philip  McHugh, 

1  Under  Strafford's  rule  no  one  Castle  or  fortress  was  on  any  account 
allowed  to  have  more  than  10  Ib.  of  powder.  As  a  consequence  of  this 
rule,  none  of  the  beleaguered  Castles  had  any  store  of  ammunition.  The 
rebels,  on  the  other  hand,  by  surprising  Newry,  had,  at  the  outset,  secured 
70  barrels. 


1641]      O'REILLY  REPULSED  FROM  KEILAGH      155 

were  taken  prisoners.  Shortly  afterwards,  on  January  7, 
these  four  important  prisoners  were  exchanged  for  Bishop 
Bedell,  his  two  sons,  and  Mr.  Thomas  Price,  Archdeacon 
of  Kilmore. 

The  failure  and  defeat  of  Edmund  O'Reilly  so  disgusted 
his  son  Mulmore,  the  High  Sheriff,  that  he  registered  a 
resolve  to  show  how  much  better  he  himself  could  conduct 
operations.  He  accordingly  got  together  a  formidable  force 
of  3,000  men,  which  included  300  from  Westmeath,  at  the 
head  of  which  he  marched  to  the  attack  of  the  two  defiant 
Castles.  Sir  Francis  went  out  to  meet  this  new  enemy 
in  the  open,  but  he  was  forced  back  by  weight  of  numbers 
into  the  Castle,  apparently  without  loss.  Nothing  more 
was  done  that  day,  but  the  next  morning  the  Castle  was 
assaulted  by  a  party  of  picked  men,  who — as  an  encourage- 
ment— were  made  very  drunk  with  whisky.  All  the 
leaders  remained  prudently  in  the  background,  at  which  we 
are  told  that  the  men,  not  unnaturally,  murmured  loudly. 
The  assault  proved  a  miserable  failure.  One  hundred 
and  sixty-seven  of  the  Irish  were  killed,  and  Mulmore — 
having  fared  no  better  than  his  father — withdrew  his 
forces,  after  driving  away  all  the  cattle  belonging  to 
the  Castle.  This  loss,  however,  was  quickly  made  good, 
for  the  garrison  organised  a  raid  into  Leitrim,  which 
resulted  in  the  capture  of  forty  cows  and  200  sheep. 

As  a  result  of  the  repulse  of  the  rebels  from  Keilagh,  we 
get  a  glimpse  of  the  first  of  those  horrid  acts  of  retaliatory 
murder  with  which  it  became  the  habit  of  the  Irish  to  seek 
consolation  for  their  defeats  in  the  field.  According  to  Dr. 
Jones,  the  massacre  in  this  case  was  organised  by  Mulmore 
himself,  out  of  spleen  at  his  defeat,  but  the  version  given 
by  William  Gibbs  is  more  probably  the  correct  one.  This 
man  was  not  only  present  on  the  occasion  of  the  massacre, 
but  he  himself  narrowly  escaped  being  one  of  the  victims. 
Gibbs's  story,  too,  is  practically  corroborated  by  the  deposi- 
tion of  Peter  Kirby.  According  to  these  two,  the  whole 
business  was  carried  out,  without  the  knowledge  of  the 
O'Reillys,  by  two  of  the  Mulpatricks  and  a  man  named 
Philip  O'Togher.  These  men,  with  the  usual  mob  at 
their  heels,  entered  Belturbet  and  started  proceedings  by 
hanging  James  Carr  and  Timothy  Dixon;  but,  finding 
this  process  of  execution  too  slow,  and  possibly  being 
afraid  of  interruption,  drove  the  remainder  of  their  victims 


156  THE  REBELLION  IN  CAVAN          [CHAP.  VI 

to  the  bridge  over  the  Erne,  and  from  there  forced  them 
with  pikes  and  swords  into  the  water.  Most  of  the  victims 
were  women  and  children,  the  only  men  whose  names 
appear  being  Samuel  the  hook-maker,  John  Jones,  and 
Samuel  and  William  Carter.  The  latter's  wife,  with  two 
children  and  two  grandchildren,  were  drowned,  as  were 
also  Gamaliel  Carter's  wife  and  children,  the  widow 
Philips,  Edward  Martin's  wife  and  two  children,  the 
two  children  of  John  Jones,  the  widow  Mundy,  Anne 
Cutler,  and  the  widow  Staunton  with  two  of  her  children 
and  four  of  her  daughter's  children.  In  all  thirty-five 
were  drowned,  and  two  men  were  hanged.1  Gibbs 
himself  actually  had  the  rope  round  his  neck,  and  was 
on  the  point  of  being  thrown  off  when  he  was  saved  by 
the  opportune  arrival  on  the  scene  of  Donnell  O'Reilly. 
Gibbs,  who  was  a  butcher  by  trade,  was  kept  from  that 
time  on  to  work  for  the  Irish,  who,  from  the  moment  of 
the  outbreak,  refused  to  do  any  sort  of  work  for  them- 
selves. Many  craftsmen,  who  would  otherwise  have 
perished,  were  for  this  reason  kept  alive,  and  later  on 
proved  invaluable  witnesses  as  to  massacres  of  which 
they  were  the  sole  survivors. 

Peter  Kirby  deposed  that,  after  the  slaughter  at  Bel- 
turbet  was  over,  Philip  McHugh  O'Reilly  arrived  in  the 
evening  and  freely  cursed  the  Mulpatricks  for  the  bloody 
part  they  had  played,  warning  them  that  God's  curse 
would  surely  come  on  the  country  for  their  cruelties. 
To  this  they  sulkily  replied  that  they  had  his  own  warrant 
for  all  that  they  had  done.  The  truth  was  that  Philip 
McHugh,  who  was  himself  inclined  to  humanity,  was 
afflicted  with  a  very  cruel  and  bloodthirsty  wife.  This 
woman,  known  as  Rose  ny  Neil  O'Reilly,  constantly 
affirmed  that  she  was  never  well  for  twenty-four  hours  after 
she  had  seen  an  Englishman  or  a  Scotchman,2  and  her 
ceaseless  clamour  was  for  the  total  extirpation  of  every 
human  being  of  British  blood.  More  than  once  we  are 
told  that  her  husband  threatened  to  put  her  away  for  her 
brutalities  ;  but  the  evidence  suggests  that,  in  the  end, 
her  will-power  and  suggestive  influence  were  not  without 
their  effect  on  O'Reilly,  for  we  learn  that  his  feelings 

1  Dep.  of  William  Gibbs,  Robert  Bennet,  Joan  Killin,  Peter  Kirby, 
William  Worth,  Richard  Smith  and  John  Whitsor. 
*  Dep.  of  Marmaduke  Batemanson. 


1641]  THE  BELTURBET  MASSACRE  157 

towards  the  British  underwent  such  a  change  that  at 
one  time  he  kept  his  nephew,  Philip  McMulmore  O'Reilly, 
shut  up  for  a  month  as  a  prisoner  in  his  house  at  Ballina- 
carrig  on  account  of  his  too  great  friendliness  towards 
the  British.1  Philip  McHugh's  mother,  on  the  other 
hand,  who  was  known  as  Catherine  Oge,  and  who  was 
descended  from  the  Campbells  of  Argyle,  was  a  good 
friend  to  the  British,  and  helped  many  in  their  extremity.1 

There  can  be  very  little  doubt  that  the  authority, 
which  the  Mulpatricks  claimed  to  have  received  for  the 
Belturbet  massacre,  came  from  Rose  ny  Neil  in  her  hus- 
band's name,  as  indeed  Marmaduke  Batemanson  definitely 
stated  in  his  evidence.  The  evidence  of  this  and  other 
witnesses  makes  it  clear  that  the  majority  of  the  massacres 
of  British  during  the  Irish  rising  of  1641  were  actuated  by 
motives  either  of  cupidity,  of  fear,  or  of  revenge.  The  first- 
named  of  these  was  unquestionably  the  main  motive  in  the 
earlier  stages  of  the  rising,  when  many  of  the  British  were 
first  tortured  to  extract  from  them  the  secret  of  where  their 
money  was  hidden,  and  afterwards  killed  so  as  to  prevent 
any  subsequent  disputes  as  to  ownership.  The  second 
motive  was  mainly  responsible  for  the  massacres  through- 
out the  middle  stages  of  the  rebellion,  when  many  of  the 
able-bodied  British  were  killed  to  prevent  the  possibility 
of  their  joining  the  various  defence  forces,  and  the  last- 
named,  viz.  revenge,  or  rather  the  desire  to  compensate 
for  defeats  in  the  field  by  a  corresponding  slaughter  of 
British  prisoners,  was  the  motive  at  the  back  of  all  the 
later  and  more  comprehensive  massacres. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  Belturbet  massacre,  the 
date  of  which  can  be  accurately  placed  at  the  end  of 
January  1642,  belonged  by  rights  to  the  third  class. 
Rose  ny  Neil,  we  may  be  sure,  was  grievously  mortified 
by  the  successive  defeats  of  Edmund  and  Mulmore  O'Reilly 
before  Keilagh  Castle,  and  doubtless  shared  with  many 
others  the  belief  that  the  disgrace  could  be  wiped  out  by 
a  corresponding  massacre  of  non-combatants.  In  this 
case  the  instruments  of  destruction  ready  to  her  hand 
were  found  in  the  relations  of  those  who  had  fallen  in 
the  fighting  outside  Keilagh  and  Croughan.  This  point 

1  From  a  paper  found  by  Nalson  in  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  House 
of  Commons. 

1  Examination  of  Rev.  George  Creichton. 


168  THE  REBELLION  IN  CAVAN          [CHAP,  vi 

is  clearly  established  by  the  statement  of  the  Rev.  George 
Creichton,  who  deposed  that,  at  the  same  time  that  the 
Belturbet  massacre  was  taking  place,  his  own  house  in 
Virginia  was  broken  into  by  a  party  of  the  McCabes 
armed  with  skeans,  who  announced  their  intention  of 
killing  all  within  the  house  on  account  of  the  losses  that 
their  sept  had  sustained  in  the  fighting  outside  Croughan. 
This  intention — according  to  Mr.  Creichton — they  would 
undoubtedly  have  carried  out,  but  for  the  intervention 
of  Hugh  McJames  O'Reilly,  who  asserted  his  authority 
and  turned  the  McCabes  out  of  the  house. 

The  cowardly  system  of  avenging  losses  suffered  in 
fair  fight  by  the  butchery  of  non-combatants  was  the 
primary  cause  of  all  the  horrors  that  were  destined  to 
fall  upon  Ulster  during  the  next  twelve  years.  Philip 
McHugh  was  in  a  prophetic  mood  when  he  warned  the 
Mulpatricks  that  God's  curse  would  surely  come  upon  the 
country  for  the  Belturbet  massacre.  The  first  shadow 
of  the  curse  fell  only  too  soon. 

Many  of  the  men-folk  belonging  to  the  Belturbet  victims 
were  members  of  the  Keilagh  and  Croughan  garrisons, 
and  these — when  they  heard  of  the  cold-blooded  slaughter 
of  their  wives  and  children — swore  that  henceforth  they 
would  give  no  quarter  to  any  Irish  of  whatsoever  sex.1  In 
immediate  retaliation,  they  made  a  joint  raid  into  the 
adjoining  county,  each  garrison  keeping  to  its  own  side 
of  the  water,  in  the  course  of  which  Hamilton's  men 
killed  thirty-nine  of  the  natives  and  Craig's  men  fourteen. 
We  have  no  evidence  as  to  whether  any  of  the  victims  of 
this  raid  were  women  or  children,  but  the  strong  probability 
is  that  this  was  so,  for  the  raid  was  before  all  else  an  act 
of  revenge  for  the  massacre  at  Belturbet.  The  whole 
incident  is  instructive  as  showing  how  wave  upon  wave 
of  brutal  reprisals  can  be  set  in  motion  by  the  first  violation 
of  the  laws  of  humanity  and  fair  dealing. 

After  his  first  repulse  from  Keilagh,  Mulmore  made  no 
further  attempt  at  an  assault,  but  tried  to  starve  the  garri- 
son out,  and  to  prevent  any  communication  between  the 
two  Castles.  With  this  end  in  view,  John  O'Reilly,  wTith  a 
strong  force,  was  posted  at  Brady's  Bridge,  and  Mulmore 
himself  at  Ballyhillian  Bridge.  These  tactics  soon  suc- 
ceeded in  reducing  the  British  to  great  straits.  They  were 

1  "Belation"  of  Henry  Jones,  D.D, 


1641]      SIEGE  OF  KEILAGH  AND  CROUGHAN        150 

compelled  to  send  out  foraging  parties  three  times  a  week, 
and,  the  longer  the  siege  lasted,  the  farther  had  these  for- 
aging parties  to  penetrate,  with  a  corresponding  increase  of 
danger  to  those  employed. 

On  April  8  Sir  James  Craig  succumbed  to  the  hardships 
endured,  and  Lady  Craig  survived  him  only  a  few  weeks.1 
Sir  James  was  buried  in  Killesandra  churchyard,  but  the 
Irish  dug  the  body  up  again  and  cut  it  in  pieces.8  Ambrose 
Bedell,  the  Bishop's  son,  and  Thomas  Price,  Archdeacon 
of  Kilmore,  who  had  been  exchanged  for  the  two  O'Rourkes, 
then  assumed  command,  but  the  garrison  was  by  this  time 
sorely  weakened  by  famine  and  disease  Out  of  the  460 
originally  enclosed  within  the  walls,  160  had  already  died 
as  the  result  of  bad  and  insufficient  food.  The  water 
supply  was  outside  the  walls,  and  the  Irish  threw  dead  dogs 
into  it.  The  garrison,  in  an  effort  to  overcome  this  trouble, 
dug  wells  inside  the  walls,  but  the  water  so  obtained  was 
muddy  and  unwholesome. 

In  Keilagh,  where  there  were  more  to  feed,  conditions 
were  even  worse,  and  actually  famine  reigned.  Horses 
and  dogs  were  eaten,  and  even  the  old  hides  intended  for 
leather  were  used  as  food.  Sir  Francis  Hamilton  himself 
and  his  wife  (a  daughter  of  Sir  Charles  Coote)  were  both 
ill,  but  their  son  Malcolm  and  Sir  Archibald  Forbes,  a 
youth  of  seventeen,  took  up  the  duties  of  active  leadership 
in  their  place.  On  April  22  these  two  determined  that 
matters  had  reached  such  a  pass  that  desperate  remedies 
were  called  for.  Accordingly,  a  sortie  was  made  with  as 
many  men  as  could  be  spared,  accompanied  by  a  number 
of  the  more  active  women  and  children.  Sixty  cows  were 
captured,  which  the  women  and  children  drove  in,  while 
the  men  protected  their  flanks  from  the  attacks  of  the 
enemy.  The  operation — as  may  be  supposed — was  not 
carried  out  without  violent  opposition,  but  all  the 
cattle  and  their  drivers  were  eventually  brought  safely  in. 
We  are  not  told  what  the  losses  of  the  garrison  were  in 
the  fight,  but  the  Irish  afterwards  informed  Dr.  Jones 
that  they  themselves  had  lost  45  men,  of  whom  14  belonged 
to  the  Magauran  sept.5 

This  fresh  supply  of  meat  saved  Keilagh  for  the  moment, 
but,  after  the  siege  of  Drogheda  had  been  raised,  all  the 

1  Clogy's  Life  of  Bedell.  *  Dep.  of  Ambrose  Bedell, 

a  "  Relation "  of  Henry  Jones,  D.D. 

12 


160  THE  REBELLION  IN  CAVAN          [CHAP,  vi 

Cavan  men  who  had  there  been  engaged  returned  home 
and  swelled  the  investing  forces,  which — with  the  addition 
of  these  reinforcements — exceeded  5,000.  Both  Castles 
were  now  completely  invested,  and  fresh  supplies  in  con- 
sequence became  unobtainable.  At  the  beginning  of  June 
Hamilton  made  an  offer  of  surrender.  It  was  agreed  that 
the  two  garrisons  should  be  allowed  to  confer  as  to  the 
terms  which  they  were  prepared  to  accept.  Sir  Francis 
Hamilton  and  Sir  Archibald  Forbes  thereupon  went  across 
to  Croughan,  where  they  held  a  long  conference  with 
Ambrose  Bedell  and  Thomas  Price.  Philip  McHugh  and 
Mulmore  were  then  called  in,  and  the  following  proposition 
was  made  to  them :  All  the  inmates  of  both  Castles  were 
to  be  escorted  to  Drogheda  by  a  sufficient  body  of  troops, 
under  the  personal  conduct  of  Philip  McHugh,  Philip  Mc- 
Mulmore  and  Mulmore  O'Reilly,  and  they  were  to  march 
away  with  all  their  arms  and  with  colours  flying.  To  these 
terms  the  O'Reillys  agreed,  and  on  June  15  a  formal 
capitulation  was  made.  Nearly  800  persons  came  out  of 
Keilagh  and  some  300  out  of  Croughan.  Castleton  and 
Culme,  who  had  remained  prisoners  in  Lough  Oughter 
Castle  after  the  Bedells  and  Price  had  been  exchanged, 
and  140  others  who  joined  them  on  the  way,  swelled  the 
numbers  of  the  convoy,  which  occupied  seven  days  in 
reaching  Drogheda.  The  women  and  children  were  very 
weak  from  want  of  food,  and  could  only  travel  slowly.  All 
slept  out  in  the  open  without  cover  of  any  sort.1  On  the 
approach  of  the  convoy  to  Drogheda,  Sir  Henry  Tichborne, 
with  three  troops  of  horse,  came  out  and  met  the 
refugees.  Courtesies  were  exchanged  with  the  three 
O'Reillys,  and  the  proceedings  terminated.  If  others  in 
Ulster  had  acted  in  the  same  honourable  and  straight- 
forward spirit  as  the  O'Reillys,  the  history  of  the  next 
ten  years  would  have  been  very  different. 

1  Clogy's  Life  of  Bedell. 


CHAPTER   VII 

THE    POSITION    IN    DOWN    AND    ANTRIM 

WHILE  Armagh  and  the  three  southern  counties  of  Ulster 
were  looking  about  them  in  helpless  indecision,  Antrim 
and  Down  were  behaving  in  a  far  more  manly  and  resolute 
fashion.  These  two  counties  made  it  clear,  from  the  very 
start,  that  they  believed  in  working  out  their  own  salvation 
and  leaving  as  little  as  possible  to  chance. 

At  6  p.m.  on  October  23  a  tired  British  horseman  rode 
into  Lisburn,  and,  making  straight  for  the  Bishop  of  Down's 
house,  told  him  of  the  capture  of  Dungannon  and  Mount- 
joy.  The  Bishop  at  once  despatched  a  letter  with  this 
disquieting  news  to  Lord  Montgomery,  who  was  at  Coomber 
Castle  in  the  Ards.  The  horseman  bearing  it  rode  with 
such  good -will  that  Montgomery  received  the  news  at 
nine  o'clock  that  night,  and  at  once  sent  out  his  own 
messengers  to  spread  the  alarm.  The  horseman  who  carried 
the  news  to  Carrickfergus  took  with  him  at  the  same  time 
a  letter  from  Montgomery  to  the  King  urging  the  despatch 
of  immediate  help. 

Just  about  the  same  time  that  Montgomery  was  reading 
the  Bishop's  letter,  Sir  Arthur  Tyringham  struggled  into 
Lisburn  with  the  news  of  the  loss  of  Newry,  and  the  Bishop 
sent  off  a  second  messenger,  on  the  heels  of  the  first,  telling 
of  the  spread  of  the  disaster.  All  through  the  night  of 
the  23rd  horsemen  galloped  here  and  there  about  the  two 
eastern  counties,  carrying  the  warning  to  the  principal 
British  residents.  Before  daybreak  beacon  fires  were 
blazing  on  the  more  prominent  hill-tops,  and  drums  were 
summoning  the  colonists  to  assemble  and  defend  them- 
selves. In  response  to  the  summons,  the  farmers  and 
labourers  came  trooping  in  from  all  sides,  armed  with 
scythes,  pitchforks  and  other  agricultural  implements. 
With  the  break  of  dawn,  fresh  messengers  arrived  bidding 

161 


162  THE  POSITION  IN  DOWN  AND  ANTRIM  [CHAP,  vn 

the  different  groups  concentrate  on  the  following  day  at 
Belfast,  where  further  orders  would  be  issued. 

The  Irish,  in  the  meanwhile,  had  as  yet  taken  no  active 
measures  for  offence  in  that  part  of  the  world,  their  chief 
local  representative,  Sir  Con  Magennis,  being  for  the 
moment  too  fully  occupied  in  the  capture  and  plunder  of 
Newry,  farther  south.  This  failure  to  strike  at  the  eastern 
counties  on  the  first  day  was,  as  things  turned  out,  a  fatal 
tactical  error  on  the  part  of  the  Irish.  It  was  no  doubt 
in  part  traceable  to  the  hope  that  the  special  dispensation 
extended  to  the  Scots,  which  had  been  publicly  proclaimed, 
would  have  had  the  effect  of  disarming  the  fears  of  the 
Antrim  and  Down  men — who  were  practically  all  Scots — 
and  of  lulling  them  into  the  position  of  passive  onlookers. 
In  this  hope  the  rebel  leaders  were  doomed  to  serious 
disappointment. 

On  Monday  the  25th,  in  conformity  with  the  summons 
issued,  Colonel  Arthur  Chichester — a  son  of  Lord  Chi- 
chester  and  a  nephew  of  the  famous  Lord  Deputy — Colonel 
Arthur  Hill  of  Hillsborough,  Sir  Arthur  Tyringham,  Sir 
Thomas  Lucas,  Captain  Blount,  Captain  Armstrong  and 
Captain  Edmonstone,  each  at  the  head  of  his  local  con- 
tingent armed  with  a  strange  and  varied  assortment  of 
ready-made  weapons,  rode  into  Belfast.1  In  the  absence 
of  Lord  Montgomery,  Colonel  Chichester  assumed  the 
command.  The  latter  had  brought  with  him  from  Carrick- 
fergus  all  the  arms  which  could  be  spared  (after  leaving 
there  a  garrison  of  300  men  under  Captain  Linden)  and 
these  arms  were  now  distributed  as  far  as  they  would  go 
among  the  assembled  colonists.  After  two  days  spent  at 
Belfast  in  properly  apportioning  the  men  among  the  various 
leaders,  Chichester  moved  on  to  Lisburn,  where — according 
to  arrangement — he  was  joined  by  Lord  Montgomery. 

This  important  place  had  been  saved  at  the  very  outset  of 
the  rising  by  the  courage  and  energy  of  Mr.  Robert  Lawson, 
a  merchant  belonging  to  Derry,  who  happened  to  be  stay- 
ing in  Belfast  with  his  father-in-law,  Mr.  Barr,  when  .the 
Bishop  of  Down  arrived  with  the  news  of  the  loss  of  Dun- 
gannon,  Charlemont  and  Mount  joy.  This  was  of  course 
prior  to  the  concentration  of  Chichester's  men  at  Belfast, 
so  that  there  was  as  yet  no  organised  resistance.  Lawson 
at  once  made  up  his  mind  to  fill  the  Bishop's  place  and 

1  Carte. 


1641]  DEFENCE  OF  LISBURN  168 

undertake  the  defence  of  Lisburn.  He  was  fortunate  in 
finding  a  most  able  Lieutenant  in  a  local  resident  of  the 
name  of  Forbes.  Before  leaving  Belfast,  these  two  found 
in  the  Castle  seven  muskets  and  eight  ancient  halberds, 
which  was  all  they  were  able  to  raise  in  the  way  of  profes- 
sional arms.  Lawson  and  Forbes  managed  to  get  together 
160  men  from  round  about  Belfast,  the  greater  part  of 
whom  were  armed  with  pitchforks,  and,  with  this  small 
but  determined  force,  they  marched  during  the  night  to 
Lisburn,  from  which  place  all  the  inhabitants  had  fled. 
Lawson's  first  step  was  to  secure  all  the  available  cattle, 
which  were  driven  into  the  courtyard  of  the  Bishop's 
house,  which  Lawson  and  Forbes  occupied.  Following 
on  this  prudent  step,  he  disposed  his  160  men  to  the  best 
advantage  possible,  and  awaited  the  attack  which  he 
knew  must  shortly  come.  On  the  following  evening,  Sir 
Con  Magennis,  flushed  with  his  recent  success  at  Newry, 
appeared  before  the  town  with  a  large  force  bent  on  further 
conquests.  Had  he  attacked  the  place  forthwith  the 
results  to  the  little  half-armed  garrison  must  have  been 
disastrous,  but  Lawson — by  the  diplomatic  use  of  lighted 
candles  distributed  here  and  there  about  the  town — 
managed  so  thoroughly  to  deceive  his  adversary  as  to  the 
numbers  of  the  garrison,  that  he  was  afraid  to  attack.1 
On  the  following  day  Chichester  and  Montgomery  arrived 
with  the  bulk  of  the  force  which  had  been  assembled  at 
Belfast,  and  Sir  Con — without  a  suspicion  of  the  magnifi- 
cent opportunity  which  he  had  lost — withdrew  towards 
Dromore. 

The  combined  British  force  available  for  Belfast  and 
Lisburn  now  numbered  1,000,  of  whom  about  one  half 
were  armed ;  but  the  discipline,  we  are  told,  left  much  to 
be  desired,  as  every  man  did  that  which  seemed  right  in 
his  own  eyes,  and  only  obeyed  orders  when  convenient. 

At  Dromore,  farther  south,  the  news  of  the  rising  had 
reached  Colonel  Matthews,  the  resident  officer,  late  on  the 
night  of  the  23rd.  Nothing  was  done  till  the  following 
morning,  when  Matthews,  with  a  small  party  of  the  British 
residents  mounted  on  ponies,  rode  out  in  the  direction  of 
Newry,  with  a  view  to  investigating  for  himself  how 
matters  stood.  Near  the  Bann  a  body  of  about  600  Irish 
was  observed,  but  Matthews  was  too  weak  to  attack,  and 
*  "  A  Relation,  etc."  Hamilton  MSS. 


164  THE  POSITION  IN  DOWN  AND  ANTRIM  [CHAP,  vn 

— having  noted  their  position — he  returned  to  his  post. 
During  the  afternoon  he  and  Captain  Crawford,  another 
resident  in  Dromore,  worked  with  the  energy  born  of 
necessity  and  succeeded  in  getting  together  from  the  town 
and  surrounding  district  a  force  of  80  foot  and  100  horse — 
half  of  them  armed — with  whom  they  rode  out  next 
morning  in  the  direction  of  the  Bann.  The  Irish  force 
seen  the  day  before  had  not  moved  ;  Matthews  at  once 
attacked,  and  with  such  success  that  he  routed  it  with  the 
loss  of  half  its  number.1  Fully  satisfied  with  this,  InVfirst 
trial  of  strength,  Matthews  returned  to  Dromore ;  but  he 
was  not  destined  to  remain  long  in  peace,  for  during  the 
following  evening  a  spy  came  in  with  the  announcement 
that  several  hundred  of  the  Irish  were  hiding  in  the  scrub 
outside,  with  the  intention  of  surprising  the  town  during 
the  night.  Matthews  wisely  determined  to  attack  rather 
than  be  attacked,  and,  riding  out  while  it  was  still  light, 
surprised  those  who  would  have  surprised  him,  and  defeated 
them  with  considerable  loss.2 

On  October  28  Chichester,  with  300  of  his  Lisburn  force, 
marched  to  Dromore,  which  he  found  practically  deserted 
by  all  except  the  habitual  residents.  The  impromptu 
defence  force  raised  by  Matthews  had  very  soon  wearied 
of  soldiering,  and,  in  the  false  sense  of  security  inspired 
by  their  two  successive  victories,  had  thrown  discretion 
to  the  winds  and  had  dispersed  in  all  directions  in  search 
of  loot  and  adventure.  Chichester  stayed  one  night  in 
Dromore,  but  next  day — on  learning  of  the  approach  of  a 
force  of  1,500  Irish  under  Sir  Con  Magennis — he  left  the 
town  to  its  fate  and  withdrew  once  more  to  Lisburn.  It 
is  difficult  to  excuse,  or  even  to  account  for,  this  excess  of 
prudence  on  the  part  of  Chichester,  and  the  result  to  those 
left  in  the  town  was  far  from  pleasant  and  might  easily  have 
proved  disastrous.  Sir  Con  Magennis,  however,  and  his 
brother  Daniel  Magennis  of  Glasroe,  were  both  reputed 
humane  and  reasonable  men,  and  at  Dromore  no  atro- 
cities were  practised  on  the  townspeople,  who  were,  how- 
ever, robbed  of  everything  and  stripped  of  their  clothing. 
Chichester — possibly  ashamed  of  his  desertion  of  the 
town — came  back  on  November  1,  with  a  much  stronger 
force ;  but  Sir  Con  did  not  think  fit  to  await  his  coming, 
and  withdrew  once  more  with  all  his  forces  to  Newry. 

1  Carte.  ?  Ibid. 


1641]      ACTIVITY  OF  THE  ANTRIM  COLONISTS    165 

The  main  difficulty  so  far  experienced  by  the  British 
leaders  had  been  that  they  had  no  State  commission  to 
raise  troops,  and  consequently  the  men's  prospects  of  pay- 
ment were  extremely  uncertain.  Payment  carries  with 
it  authority  and  the  power  to  punish,  but,  without  payment, 
there  can  be  neither  the  one  nor  the  other,  and  discipline 
is  consequently  non-existent.  The  British  had  willingly 
banded  together  for  self-protection  in  the  first  hour  of  danger, 
but  the  easy  discomfiture  of  the  enemy  on  every  occasion 
when  they  had  so  far  met  had  the  effect  of  making  them 
underrate  the  danger,  and  overrate  the  loss  which  they 
were  sustaining  by  the  neglect  of  their  farms  and  other 
business.  After  Chichester's  second  visit  to  Dromore  and 
the  disappearance  of  the  enemy,  it  was  found  impossible 
to  keep  the  men  any  longer  together,  and  they  dispersed 
to  their  various  homes.  Hardly  had  they  done  so  before 
a  commission  arrived  from  the  Lords  Justices  in  Dublin, 
authorising  Colonel  Chichester  and  Sir  Arthur  Tyringham 
to  raise  a  regiment  apiece  to  be  maintained  at  the  expense 
of  the  State,  and  ten  days  later  came  an  authority  from  the 
King  for  Lords  Montgomery,  Sir  James  Montgomery  of 
Grey  Abbey  and  Sir  Robert  Stewart  each  to  raise  a  regi- 
ment on  the  same  terms.1  At  the  same  time,  the  King  sent 
arms  for  the  equipment  of  1,500  men.  These  royal  com- 
missions were  afterwards  repudiated  by  the  Lords  Justices, 
on  the  ground  that  they  had  not  been  authorised  by  the 
Parliament,  with  the  result  that  many  of  the  regiments  con- 
cerned got  no  pay  from  any  source,  and  had  to  maintain 
themselves  as  best  they  could.  The  famous  Lagan  Force 
was  mainly  self-supporting  during  the  nine  years  that  it  kept 
the  field.  Another  self-supporting  regiment  of  agricultural 
volunteers  was  raised  by  Mr.  Archibald  Stewart  in  the 
Ballymena  district,  chiefly  from  among  the  Earl  of  Antrim's 
tenants.  Stewart,  who  was  Antrim's  agent,  got  warning  of 
the  rising  from  Colonel  Rowley  at  Coleraine  during  the  night 
of  October  23,  and  on  the  following  day,  being  Sunday, 
he  rode  to  the  church  at  Dervock,  where  he  publicly  an- 
nounced the  news.  Within  a  few  hours  he  had  raised  a 
volunteer  force  of  800  men.  Some  of  these  were  at  once 
detached  for  the  defence  of  Stewart's  own  house  at  Ballintoy 
and  others  were  put  as  a  garrison  in  Oldstone  Castle  near 

1  Carte.    Nalson  says  these  commissions  were  from  the  Lords  Justices; 
but  Carte,  in  this  instance,  is  probably  the  more  correct. 


166  THE  POSITION  IN  DOWN  AND  ANTRIM  [CHAP,  vii 

Clough,  these  being  the  only  two  buildings  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood which  were  at  the  same  time  roomy  enough  to 
accommodate  a  number  of  refugees  and  substantial  enough 
to  resist  any  ordinary  attack  by  assault.  Robert  Fullerton 
was  placed  in  command  of  the  former,  and  Walter  Kennedy 
of  the  latter.  Of  those  of  Stewart's  regiment  that  remained 
a  considerable  proportion  were  Roman  Catholic  Highlanders 
from  the  Route,  and  there  was,  in  addition,  a  strong  con- 
tingent of  Irish  from  the  Bann  side  The  former  formed 
themselves  into  a  company  under  James  McCollkittagh 
McDonnell,  while  the  latter  placed  themselves  under  the 
command  of  Tirlough  Oge  O'Cahan.  Both  Chichester  and 
Montgomery  warned  Stewart  of  the  grave  danger  of  in- 
cluding such  unreliable  material  in  his  defence  force  ;  but 
his  confidence  in  James  McDonnell  was  so  unshakable 
that  he  declined  all  advice  in  the  matter.  James  McColl- 
kittagh, as  a  matter  of  fact,  as  well  as  his  brother  Ala- 
stair,  were  only  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  liberty  owing 
to  the  friendly  intervention  of  Archibald  Stewart.  Both 
brothers — who  had  been  in  Ireland  only  a  short  time — 
were  arrested  the  moment  they  landed  from  Scotland  on 
account  of  the  dangerous  reputation  which  they  bore  ;  but, 
owing  to  the  strong  representations  made  on  their  behalf 
by  Stewart,  they  had  been  set  at  liberty.1  Very  dearly 
was  Stewart  destined  to  repent  his  friendly  action. 

The  effect  of  the  repudiation  by  the  Lords  Justices  of  all 
commissions  issued  by  the  King  was  that — though  there 
were  various  self-supporting  defence  corps  dotted  about 
the  country — the  only  official  regiments  in  Ulster,  at  the 
time,  were  Chichester's  and  Tyringham's — both  newly 
raised  under  commission — and  Sir  William  Stewart's  regi- 
ment, which  had  been  on  the  official  roster  prior  to  the 
rising.  In  view  of  the  remarkable  achievements  of  the 
latter  regiment  (which  formed  part  of  the  Lagan  Force) 
in  the  face  of  tremendous  odds,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that, 
shortly  before  the  outbreak  of  the  rebellion,  this  regiment 
had  been  given  a  fortnight's  extra  drill  by  Ormonde  for 
inefficiency.4  The  effective  strength  of  these  regiments 
was  very  much  reduced  by  the  need  for  garrisoning  the 
more  important  strongholds  in  North  Ulster.  Antrim 
Castle,  with  its  small  flotilla  of  Lough  Neagh  boats,  was 

1  McSkimmin's  History  of  Carrickfergus. 
1  Radclyffe's  Straff ord. 


1641]  DISPOSITIONS  FOR  DEFENCE  167 

placed  in  charge  of  Sir  John  Clotworthy,  while  small  garri- 
sons, under  the  command  of  Captains  Upton  and  Agnew 
respectively,  were  placed  in  Norton  Castle  and  Larne 
Castle.  Five  hundred  men  under  Colonel  Matthews  were 
left  in  Belfast  to  act  as  a  mobile  force,  which  could  be  quickly 
directed  to  any  danger-point,  and  the  small  balance  was 
sent  on  to  supplement  the  Lisburn  garrison,  which  was 
no'w  under  the  joint  command  of  Captains  Dines  and  Burley, 
Mr.  Lawson  having  returned  to  Derry. 


CHAPTER    VIII 

THE   SIEGE   OF   DROGHEDA 

THE  most  important  event  during  the  first  seven  months  of 
the  1641  rising  was  unquestionably  the  siege  of  Drogheda, 
and  although  these  pages  are  by  way  of  dealing  mainly  with 
Ulster  matters,  this  siege,  and  the  events  nearer  Dublin 
which  led  up  to  it,  are  so  inextricably  bound  up  in  Ulster 
affairs  that  it  is  impossible  to  pass  them  wholly  by. 

Dundalk  and  Ardee  had  passed  into  the  hands  of  Coll 
McBrian  McMahon  of  Balloghie  at  the  beginning  of  Novem- 
ber, without  a  blow  being  struck  in  their  defence.  Drogheda 
ran  an  appreciable  risk  of  sharing  the  same  fate,  but  it 
was  saved  by  the  energy  and  promptitude  of  Lord  Moore 
of  Mellifont.  When  the  rising  first  broke  out,  the  govern- 
ment of  Drogheda  was  in  the  hands  of  a  weak  and  incom- 
petent man,  inaptly  named  Sir  Faithful  Fortescue.  The 
garrison  consisted  of  two  companies  only,  of  whom  half 
were  Irish.  There  was,  therefore,  practically  only  one 
company  of  English  troops  to  defend  the  place.  There 
can  be  little  doubt  that  the  town  would  have  shared  the 
fate  of  Newry  and  Dundalk  but  for  the  energetic  action 
of  Lord  Moore,  who  managed  to  raise  sixty  horse  from 
among  the  British  residents  round  Mellifont,  and,  with 
this  impromptu  force  at  his  heels,  galloped  the  three  miles 
to  Drogheda.  Once  within  the  walls,  he  took  over  entire 
control  of  operations  within.  His  first  act  was  to  requisi- 
tion four  guns  and  powder  to  match,  which  were  found  on 
a  merchant  ship  lying  at  anchor  in  the  river  Boyne.  These 
he  transferred  to  the  town  and  planted  on  the  Mill  Mount, 
after  which  he  set  the  townspeople  to  work  to  repair  all 
the  weak  places  in  the  walls.1  The  town  being  then  in  as 
good  a  position  for  defence  as  circumstances  admitted, 
Lord  Moore  himself  rode  off  to  Dublin  with  the  idea  of  laying 
before  the  Lords  Justices  the  extreme  insufficiency  of  the 
garrison  and  the  vital  necessity  which  existed  for  prevent- 

i  Carte. 
168 


1641]       TICHBORNE   SUPERSEDES  FORTESCUE      169 

ing  Drogheda  from  passing  into  the  hands  of  the  rebels. 
The  Lords  Justices,  as  it  turned  out,  were  much  too  con- 
cerned over  their  own  safety  and  that  of  Dublin  to  waste 
much  thought  over  the  perils  of  any  town  farther  afield. 
All  that  Lord  Moore  could  get  them  to  agree  to  was  that 
he  should  be  accompanied  to  Drogheda  by  one  Captain 
Gibson,  who  carried  from  the  Lords  Justices  a  commission 
to  enroll  a  company  of  the  Drogheda  townsmen  at  the 
expense  of  the  State.  Accordingly  next  day  Lord  Moore 
and  Gibson  rode  back  to  Drogheda,  where  a  new  company 
of  120  men  was  enrolled,  and  as  well  equipped  as  the  meagre 
armament  of  the  place  would  admit.  Fortescue  ex- 
pressed himself  very  dissatisfied  with  the  arrangements 
made  by  the  Lords  Justices,  and,  with  more  prudence  than 
decency,  turned  his  back  for  ever  on  Drogheda  and  made 
his  way  to  Dublin. 

Fortescue's  extreme  pessimism,  and  the  fact  that  he  had 
deserted  his  post,  seem  to  have  at  last  convinced  the 
Lords  Justices  that  energetic  action  was  called  for.  Sir 
Henry  Tichborne  was  appointed  Governor  in  Fortescue's 
place,  and,  on  November  3,  set  out  for  his  new  command 
at  the  head  of  a  specially  raised  regiment  of  1,000  Dublin 
townsmen,  of  whom  we  are  told  that  700  were  English 
Protestants.1  Drogheda  was  as  yet  very  imperfectly 
invested,  and  the  reinforcements  reached  their  destination 
without  encountering  any  opposition.  The  fact  of  all 
these  communications  passing  between  Dublin  and  Drog- 
heda without  interruption  convinced  Sir  Phelim  that  Coll 
McBrian  McMahon  was  too  old  and  lethargic  for  his  post 
and  that  he  himself  had  better  conduct  operations  in 
person.  Accordingly  he  moved  down  from  Newry,  which 
he  had  made  his  headquarters  during  the  first  half  of 
November,  at  the  head  of  1,300  men,  with  which  to  supple- 
ment the  investing  force.  His  first  venture  ended  success- 
fully, for  he  was  able  to  capture  the  old  Cistercian  Mon- 
astery of  Mellifont  belonging  to  Lord  Moore.  This  event 
was  brought  about  as  follows : 

When  Tichborne  had  taken  over  command  of  Drogheda 
he  (very  unwisely  as  it  would  seem)  detached  twenty- 
four  musketeers  and  fifteen  horsemen  to  garrison  Melli- 
font. This  little  garrison  Sir  Phelim  attacked  with  the  full 
strength  of  his  force.  A  stubborn  defence  was  put  up  till  the 

i  Carte. 


170  THE  SIEGE  OF  DROGHEDA  [CHAP,  vni 

garrison's  ammunition  was  exhausted,  after  which  the 
horsemen  cut  their  way  through  to  Drogheda,  and  the  mus- 
keteers surrendered  on  promise  of  quarter.  According  to 
Carte,  this  promise  was  not  kept,  and  several  were  killed 
after  surrender  in  revenge  for  the  death  of  Captain  Owen 
McMahon,  who  had  been  killed  during  the  attack;  but 
the  point  is  not  clearly  established.  Content  apparently 
with  this  small  triumph  at  Mellifont,  Sir  Phelim  abandoned 
his  personal  designs  upon  Drogheda  and  returned  to  Newry. 
It  is  conceivable  that,  before  leaving,  he  did  make  sugges- 
tions that  resulted  in  a  better  disposition  of  the  force 
investing  Drogheda,  for,  before  the  month  was  out,  the 
Irish  had  achieved  the  greatest  victory  that  they  were  des- 
tined to  register  till  the  date  of  Benburb  five  years  later. 

Tichborne  had  proved  a  man  of  very  different  calibre 
from  his  predecessor.  He  was  as  brave  and  energetic  as 
the  other  had  been  timid  and  irresolute.  Even  to  Tich- 
borne, however,  it  appeared  clear  that  the  place,  with  its 
great  length  of  half-ruinous  wall  and  its  existing  garrison, 
was  incapable  of  resisting  anything  in  the  nature  of  a  deter- 
mined attack.  It  was  a  matter  of  common  knowledge 
that  half  of  those  within  the  walls  were  ready  to  go  over  to 
the  other  side  at  the  first  opportunity,  and  even  the 
garrison  could  not  be  counted  upon  to  a  man.  Tichborne 
wrote  to  Dublin  pointing  out  the  weakness  of  the  situation, 
and  begging  for  the  prompt  despatch  of  reinforcements. 
Refugees  were  by  now  beginning  to  arrive  in  Dublin  in 
great  numbers  from  all  the  country  around,  and,  in  view 
of  the  extreme  difficulty  of  housing  and  feeding  all  of  these, 
it  seemed  desirable  to  employ  some  of  them  elsewhere, 
if  possible.  Many  were  already  enrolled  in  Sir  Charles 
Coote's  regiment  and  in  the  Dublin  defence  corps,  but  the 
employment  of  these  did  not  sufficiently  relieve  the  con- 
gestion. It  was  therefore  decided  to  enroll  a  force  from 
among  these  refugees  for  the  immediate  relief  of  Drogheda. 
Dublin  Castle  had  plenty  of  weapons  in  store ;  the  difficulty 
lay  in  finding  able-bodied  men  to  use  them.  The  majority 
of  the  refugees  were  half-starved,  and  shattered  in  health 
and  nerves  by  exposure.  They  were  not  of  the  material 
from  which  a  relief  force  would  be  selected  under  ordinary 
circumstances.  However,  the  circumstances  were  very  far 
from  ordinary,  and  the  best  had  to  be  made  of  such  material 
as  offered.  Six  hundred  foot  and  fifty  horse  were  even- 


1641]      BRITISH  DEFEAT  AT  JULIANSTOWN          171 

tually  mustered,  the  former  being  under  the  command  of 
Sergeant-Ma j or  Roper,  and  the  latter  of  Sir  Patrick  Wemys. 
On  November  27  the  relief  force  set  out  on  its  march, 
and  word  was  sent  to  Tichborne  warning  him  of  its  ap- 
proach. On  receipt,  of  the  news  Tichborne  advanced  some 
way  out  of  the  town  to  meet  his  reinforcements,  according 
to  arrangement ;  but,  as  these  failed  to  put  in  an  appearance, 
he  returned  to  Drogheda.  The  fact  was  that  Roper's 
men — being  very  weak  from  previous  privations — proved 
quite  unable  to  march  the  distance  agreed  upon,  and  did 
not  arrive  at  the  meeting- place  till  twelve  hours  too  late.1 
In  the  meanwhile  the  Irish  had  interposed,  between  the 
relief  column  and  its  objective,  a  force  of  3,000  men,  in- 
cluding five  troops  of  horse,  of  which  three,  we  are  told, 
were  equipped  with  lances  and  two  with  pistols.  They 
had  two  field-pieces,  and  were  commanded  by  Roger  Moore, 
Colonel  Bryne  and  Philip  McHugh  O'Reilly. 

In  the  thick  fog  of  early  morning  Roper's  column  suddenly 
found  itself  confronted  by  this  formidable  array.  The 
only  man  who  did  not  lose  his  head  was  Sir  Patrick  Wemys, 
who  offered  to  charge  the  enemy  forthwith  if  the  foot  would 
undertake  to  support  him.  This  was  agreed  to,  and  Wemys 
headed  his  fifty  men  for  a  charge  which,  if  carried  to  a 
conclusion,  would  have  put  Balaclava  completely  in  the 
shade  ;  but  the  moment  he  set  his  handful  of  horse  in 
motion  the  foot — without  even  once  firing  their  muskets 
— threw  down  their  newly  acquired  arms,  and  either  ran 
away  or  surrendered.2  Stupefied  by  this  unexpected 
conduct  on  the  part  of  the  infantry,  and  realising  the  use- 
lessness  of  his  unsupported  effort,  Wemys  wheeled  his 
men  to  the  right,  and  made  his  way  to  Drogheda,  which 
he  reached  without  the  loss  of  a  man.  Roper's,  Cadogan's 
and  Townley's  companies  of  foot  also  appear  to  have 
found  their  way  to  Drogheda,  though  by  what  supernatural 
agency  is  not  clear ;  but  the  rest  were  all  killed,  except  such 
as  were  Irish.* 

The  Irish  secured  a  great  prize  in  the  way  of  arms  and 
ammunition  by  their  victory  at  Julianstown,  and  an 
immense  stimulus  was  given  to  the  rebellion  generally, 
and  more  especially  to  the  prosecution  of  the  Drogheda 
siege.  As  a  result  of  the  event,  the  number  of  those 
investing  the  place  was  said  to  have  risen  to  20,000. 
i  Carte.  •  Examination  of  the  Rev.  George  Creichton.  »  Carte. 


CHAPTER   IX 

ARMAGH   UNDER   SIR   PHELIM's    RULE 

ON  November  1  Art  Oge  Magennis,  Oghie  O'Hanlon  and 
Toole  McCann,  at  the  head  of  about  1,000  men,  bore  down 
on  the  village  of  Lurgan,  stripped  and  plundered  all  the 
inhabitants,  and  killed  about  a  dozen  or  fifteen  people, 
among  whom  were  John  Davis,  Richard  Ridsdale,  Thomas 
Ward,  Leonard  Riggs,  Thomas  Howber,  James  Horsley, 
Thomas  Jackson,  James  Tanner,  John  Rogers,  Giles 
Calvert  and  Mary  Sadler.  The  Castle  was  then  summoned 
to  surrender,  and  this  summons  was  eventually  yielded  to 
by  Sir  William  Brownlow,  on  condition  that  all  within  the 
Castle,  and  all  the  residents  in  the  village,  should  be  given 
a  safe  conduct  to  Lisburn.  Carte  says  Brownlow  held 
out  for  a  fortnight,  and  this  may  possibly  be  so,  but  it 
is  quite  certain  that  Brownlow  himself  makes  no  such 
claim  in  his  deposition.  Whatever  may  have  been  the 
actual  date  of  the  surrender,  the  conditions  attached  to 
it  were  not  observed  by  the  Irish.  All  within  the  Castle 
were  stripped,  some  were  killed  after  surrender,  and  the 
rest  were  sent  as  prisoners  to  Armagh,  where  many  of 
them  were  afterwards  killed  in  the  great  May  massacres. 
The  leading  spirit  in  all  the  murders  committed  was  Toole 
McCann.  The  villagers  were  allowed  to  proceed  on  their 
way  to  Lisburn,  but,  half-way  there,  they  were  again 
attacked  and  stripped,  and  some  of  them  killed.1 

There  always  has  been,  and  there  always  must  be,  a 
certain  amount  of  mystery  about  this  Lurgan  affair.  It 
seems  almost  incredible  that,  after  nine  days  of  rebellion, 
during  which  many  very  bad  murders  had  been  committed 
(though  nothing  as  yet  in  the  way  of  a  general  massacre, 
the  British  villagers  should  not  have  taken  shelter  within 
the  walls  of  their  protective  Castle,  as  those  in  other  parts 

1  Dep.  of  Sir  William  Brownlow,  Henry  Ogle,  William  Code,  James 
Bradley,  Alexander  Gill  and  Robert  Pearson. 

172 


1641]       SURRENDER  OF  AfcMAGH  CHURCH  173 

of  the  country  had  done.     It  also  seems  very  extraordinary 
that,  if  isolated  Castles  like  Keilagh  and  Croughan,  with 
practically  no  powder  and  cut  off  from  any  hope  of  succour, 
could  hold  out  for  months,  a  Castle  so  favourably  situated 
as  Lurgan— being  as  it  was  within  a  few  miles  of  the  British 
stronghold  of  Lisburn — should  at  once  give  in.     Sir  William 
Brownlow  afterwards  pleaded,  in  justification  of  his  action, 
that  he  had  no  arms,  ammunition  or  food.     Other  accounts, 
on  the  other  hand,  say  that  Colonel  Chichester  had,  shortly 
before,  sent  him  three  barrels  of  powder  from  Carrickfergus, 
which  on  the  face  of  things  is  highly  probable.     It  is  also 
very  difficult  to  understand  why— if  Sir  William  Brownlow 
did  not  intend  putting  up  any  fight— he  had  not  previously 
withdrawn  to  Lisburn.     All  the  circumstances  connected 
with  this  curious  surrender  are  mysterious  and  unsatis- 
factory, and  all  the  more  so  on  account  of  the  singular 
reticence  on  the  subject  of  the  man  principally  concerned. 
From   Mellifont    Sir  Phelim  had  returned  to  Newry, 
where  it  is  believed  he  had  a  conference  with  Rory  Maguire. 
Whether  as  the  result  of  this  conference,  or  for  other 
reasons,  he  went  on  the  following  day  to  Armagh,  where 
the  British  were  still  holding  out  in  the  Great  Church. 
To  these  people  he  now  made  a  specific  offer.     He  under- 
took that,  if  they  would  give  up  the  church,  he  would 
guarantee  that  they  should  continue  to  live  in  their  own 
houses  under  his  personal  protection.     This  undertaking 
he  swore  by  all  the  most  sacred  oaths  in  his  vocabulary  to 
carry  out  faithfully,  offering,  if  need  be,  to  sign  the  under- 
taking in  his  own  blood.1     The  inmates  of  the  church,  who 
appear  to  have  reposed  full  confidence  in  the  undertaking 
of  so  prominent  a  magnate  as  Sir  Phelim,  after  some  de- 
bate, accepted  the  terms  offered  and  opened  the  doors. 
Nothing  of  a  sensational  or  tragic  nature  followed.     Such 
as  belonged  to  the  town  returned  quietly  to  their  homes, 
where,  for  the  next  five  months,  they  lived  their  ordinary 
lives  without  hindrance.2     The  country  residents  in  the 
near  neighbourhood  also  found  thei?  way  back  unmolested 
to  their  old  homes,  but  such  as  came  from  Loughgall  were 
marched  back  to  that  parish  > under  escort,  professedly  for 
the  purpose  of  protecting  them  from  the  violence  of  the 
country    people.      On    arrival    at   Loughgall    they   were 

1  Examination  of  Mr.  Nicholas  Simpson. 
a  Dep.  of  Archie  Simpson  and  Mrs.  Beare. 


174    ARMAGH  UNDER  SIR  PHELIM'S  RULE   [CHAP,  ix 

locked  in  the  church,  where  they  were  left  unmolested  for 
forty-eight  hours.  For  the  details  of  the  horrible  doings 
that  followed  we  have  to  rely  mainly  on  the  sworn  deposi- 
tions of  Alice  Greig  and  Jane  Beare,  though  many  others 
gave  evidence  as  to  the  wholesale  tortures  and  murders 
that  took  place  within  the  sacred  building.  Alice  Greig, 
who  was  one  of  the  inmates  of  the  church,  swore  that,  on 
the  third  day  of  their  confinement,  a  number  of  Irish 
under  the  lead  of  Colonel  O'Doherty  entered  the  church, 
and,  after  stripping  all  the  inmates,  men,  women  and 
children  to  the  skin,  began  practising  abominable  tortures 
on  the  naked  bodies  of  the  men  of  the  party,  with  the 
idea  of  forcing  from  them  a  confession  of  where  they  had 
hidden  their  money  and  valuables.  From  this  it  is  evi- 
dent that,  during  the  month  which  had  elapsed  since  the 
outbreak  of  the  rebellion,  the  Irish  of  Loughgall  had  been 
unsuccessfully  hunting  for  the  money  and  valuables  of 
such  of  the  British  colonists  in  Loughgall  as  had  taken 
refuge  in  Armagh  church,  i  They  were  now  determined — 
by  one  means  or  another — to  extract  the  secret  of  their 
hiding-places,  and  the  tortures  which  they  inflicted  were 
indescribably  horrible.  Many  died  from  the  mutilations 
inflicted.  Alice  Greig  made  oath  that  her  son,  John 
Greig  (presumably  a  child),  was,  by  order  of  O'Dogherty, 
quartered  alive,  and  the  quarters  flung  in  the  face  of 
Richard  Greig,  his  father,  who  was  then  himself  slowly 
killed  with  eighteen  wounds  from  skeans.1  The  devilish 
work  was  only  put  a  stop  to  by  the  timely  arrival  of 
Philip  McMulmore  O'Reilly,  who  sternly  ordered  the  per- 
petrators to  desist. 

Jane  Beare  swore  in  her  deposition  that,  as  the  result 
of  these  tortures,  £4,000  was  extracted  from  the  victims 
in  Loughgall  church.  What  was  done  with  the  survivors 
we  do  not  know,  but  the  probability  is  that  they  were  let 
go  for  the  moment.  Carte  suggests  that  the  torture  of 
their  prisoners,  in  which  the  Irish  indulged  at  this  period 
of  the  rising,  was  deliberately  encouraged  by  Sir  Phelim 
with  the  idea  of  incriminating  those  involved  past  all 
hope  of  forgiveness  ;  his  fears  being  lest,  when  the  British 
began  to  gain  the  upper  hand,  some  of  the  Irish  might 
show  a  disposition  to  go  over,  or,  at  all  events,  to  render 
such  services  as  might  ensure  their  pardon.  To  counter- 
1  Dep.  of  Alice  Greig  and  Jane  Beare. 


1641]      ATROCITIES  IN  LOUGHGALL  CHURCH      175 

act  the  possibility  of  any  such  contingency,  it  is  suggested 
that  Sir  Phclim  excited  and  encouraged  the  cupidity  of 
the  natives,  until  they  became  so  deeply  steeped  in 
atrocities  that  their  only  hope  lay  in  adhesion  to  the  rebel 
cause.  Carte's  opinion  must  be  accorded  due  respect  in 
view  of  the  many  and  varied  sources  of  information  at 
his  disposal.  At  the  same  time,  it  appears  fairly  evident, 
from  a  survey  of  the  facts,  that  the  atrocities  in  Loughgall 
church  were  perpetrated  without  the  cognisance  of  Sir 
Phelim.  It  is  hardly  conceivable  that  he  should  have 
allowed  the  majority  of  the  Armagh  church  occupants  to 
go  free,  and  have  reserved  this  horrible  fate  for  those 
only  who  came  from  Loughgall.  It  is  far  more  in  ac- 
cordance with  probability  that  he  actually  did  intend  that 
the  Loughgall  contingent  should  be  safely  escorted  home ; 
but  that  some  of  the  local  people,  or  possibly  the  members 
of  the  escort  themselves,  seized  on  the  opportunity  which 
was  providentially  placed  in  their  way  of  forcing  the 
prisoners  to  reveal  the  whereabouts  of  their  valuables,  for 
which  unsuccessful  search  had  been  made  during  the  time 
that  the  British  had  been  in  Armagh  church.  At  the 
same  time,  though  Sir  Phelim  must  be  acquitted  of  direct 
complicity  in  the  horrors  of  Loughgall  church,  he  cannot 
escape  the  odium  of  having  taken  no  steps  to  punish  any 
of  those  who  had  so  grossly  violated  the  pledge  which  he 
had  given.  Furthermore,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  he 
had  himself  set  the  example  of  murder  for  gain  by  taking 
the  lives  of  all  those  to  whom  he  owed  money.  Lord 
Caulfield,  to  whom  he  owed  £1,000,  was  still  a  prisoner 
but  destined  to  be  murdered  within  a  few  weeks.  An- 
other of  the  British  who  suffered  for  having  helped  Sir 
Phelim  in  his  need  was  Mr.  James  Maxwell  of  Kinard,  to 
whom  he  owed  £260.  This  gentleman  was  ill  in  bed  of 
a  raging  fever  at  the  time  of  his  murder,  but  none  the  less 
he  was  dragged  down  to  the  river  Blackwater  by  Patrick 
O'Laffan  and  Shane  O'Hanlon  and  there  drowned.1  The 
two  assassins  then  went  back  for  Maxwell's  wife,  Grizel, 
who  was  in  actual  childbirth  at  the  time.  They  dragged 
her  down  to  the  river  by  the  hair  of  her  head  and  flung 
her  in  after  her  husband.2  For  this  brutal  act  both  Sir 
Phelim  and  Shane  O'Hanlon  were  sternly  reproved  by  a 
priest  of  the  name  of  O'Corr,  who  warned  them  that  no  land 

1  Dep.  of  Dr.  Robert  Maxwell.          *  Dep.  of  Mr.  Nicholas  Simpson. 
13 


176  ARMAGH  UNDER  SIR  PHELIM'S  RULE  [CHAP.  « 

could  flourish  where  such  abominations  were  practised. 
The  rebuke  had  no  effect.  Another  creditor  conveniently 
removed  was  Mr.  Fullerton,  minister  of  Loughgall,  to 
whom  Sir  Phelim  owed  £600  on  mortgage.1  Mr.  Fullerton, 
who  no  doubt  knew  of  the  danger  which  he  ran,  in 
common  with  all  those  to  whom  Sir  Phelim  owed  money, 
gave  Manus  O'Cahan  £35  to  convey  himself  and  Richard 
Gladwich  safely  to  Lisburn.  O'Cahan  took  the  money, 
but,  when  he  had  got  the  men  a  mile  out  of  Loughgall, 
he  cut  both  their  throats.*  Captain  Ruys  Price,  who 
had  recently  bought  some  of  Sir  Phelim's  land  at  Tur- 
karry  for  £100,  was  also  put  out  of  the  way.  Five  of  his 
little  children  were  afterwards  murdered  at  Portadown 
Bridge;  but  Mrs.  Price  and  one  daughter  survived  as 
prisoners,  though  under  circumstances  of  appalling  misery. 
All  these  murders  would  appear  to  have  been  of  a  purely 
mercenary  order. 

If  Sir  Phelim's  object  was  to  encourage  brutality  by 
appealing  to  the  cupidity  of  the  natives,  there  can  be  no 
question  but  that  he  was  thoroughly  successful.  A  free 
licence  was  given  to  every  Irishman,  and,  indeed,  to  every 
Irish  woman  and  child  in  the  counties  of  Armagh  and 
Tyrone  to  torture  and  kill  the.  starved  and  naked  British 
as  they  thought  fit.  There  was  no  check  on  the  inclina- 
tions of  even  the  most  vile,  for  Sir  Phelim,  who  should 
have  supplied  the  check,  was  either  too  sympathetic  or 
too  timid  to  assert  himself.  After  Lord  Caulfield  had 
been  murdered,  Sir  Phelim  imprisoned  Edmund  O'Hugh, 
who  fired  the  shot,  and  pretended  great  grief.  O'Hugh, 
however,  managed  to  escape  with  suspicious  promptitude, 
and,  though  Sir  Phelim  hanged  two  sentries  for  the  sake 
of  appearances,  he  failed  to  convince  the  world  that  he 
was  not  privy  to  the  escape. 

The  only  other  case  on  record  in  which  the  Irish  leader 
made  a  pretence  of  punishing  evil-doers  was  on  the 
occasion  of  the  murder  of  Mrs.  Boswell,  who  had  been 
nurse  to  his  youngest  child.  On  learning  of  this  outrage 
he  is  said  to  have  shed  tears,  and  to  have  removed  a 
priest  named  Oghie  (O'Hanlon)  from  the  Government  of 
Kinard,  where  the  murder  was  committed.  This  super- 

i  Reid. 

3  Dep.  of  Edward  Saltinghall,  Wm.  Clarke  and  Thomas  Taylor  of 
Clanbrassil. 


1641]  SIR  PHELIM  O'NEIL  177 

ficial  punishment,  however,  once  more  proved  a  farce, 
for  we  learn  that  Oghie  the  priest  was  quickly  reinstated 
in  his  old  post.1 

To  the  careful  student  of  the  doings  of  those  days  the 
most  outstanding  feature  of  Sir  Phelim's  character  would 
appear  to  be  its  immeasurable  meanness.  At  the  begin- 
ning of  the  rising  many  of  the  British  colonists  in  the 
counties  of  Armagh  and  Tyrone  had  crowded  into  Kinard, 
claiming  the  protection  of  Sir  Phelim  as  the  chief  Irish 
magnate  of  the  district.  There  is  abundant  evidence  to 
show  that  this  protection  was,  in  the  majority  of  cases, 
accorded,  and  that,  as  a  rule,  it  proved  quite  ineffective. 
Many  thousands  of  those  who  carried  Sir  Phelim's  pro- 
tection were  gradually  killed  off,  and  the  man  in  whose 
promise  they  had  trusted  disclaimed  responsibility  by 
pleading  ignorance  of  the  murderers'  intentions,  and  regret 
that  the  zeal  of  some  of  his  followers  had  outstripped  their 
authority.  Sir  Phelim  himself  only  seems  to  have  deve- 
loped butcherly  tendencies  after  sustaining  defeats  in  the 
field,  when  he  became  as  a  raging  beast,  or  in  cases  where 
there  was  monetary  profit  in  killing.  Otherwise  he  appears 
as  the  passive  spectator  of  other  men's  brutalities,  and 
the  occasional  saviour  by  stealth  of  a  suppliant.  We 
know  that  he  saved  the  life  of  Mr.  Griffin,  a  curate  in 
Armagh,  but  the  reprieve  availed  the  unhappy  curate 
nothing,  for  he  was  killed  two  days  later,  a  circumstance 
which  tends  to  prove  that  Sir  Phelim's  protection  carried 
no  weight.  It  is  to  be  doubted,  indeed,  whether  he  had 
much  restrictive  authority  over  his  followers,  in  spite 
of  his  official  position  as  Commander-in-Chief  in  Ulster. 
Michael  Harrison,  who  was  Sir  Phelim's  secretary,  in  his 
long  and  instructive  deposition,  cites  an  incident  which 
suggests  very  strongly  that  Sir  Phelim  was  either  too 
frightened  of  his  cut-throat  retainers  to  punish  them,  or 
else  secretly  in  sympathy  with  their  barbarities.  Harrison 
relates  that,  early  in  December  1641,  a  priest  named  Gynan 
happened  to  catch,  red-handed,  a  man  who  had  just 
killed  an  Englishman  who  carried  Sir  Phelim's  protection. 
The  priest  marched  the  man  straight  off  into  the  presence 
of  Sir  Phelim,  with  his  sword  still  bloody,  and  warned  the 
Irish  leader  that,  if  he  did  not  punish  those  who  violated 
his  protection,  God  would  not  prosper  his  undertaking. 
*  Dep.  of  William  Skelton. 


178    ARMAGH  UNDER  SIR  PHELIM'S  RULE  [CHAP,  ix 

Sir  Phelim,  however,  made  a  shuffling  reply  and  the  mur- 
derer went  off  unpunished.1 

With  the  recognised  leader  acting  in  such  a  weak-kneed 
fashion,  it  is  not  surprising  that  all  the  vilest  characters 
in  the  country  came  to  the  front  and  set  the  general 
fashion  in  cruelty.  The  leaders,  who  should  have  checked 
these  outrages,  looked  placidly  on  and  in  some  cases  even 
took  the  lead  in  brutality.  In  other  cases  we  know  that 
they  secretly  succoured  the  British,  but  in  no  single  case 
can  we  find  that  they  dared  to  punish  the  ruffians  who 
now  ruled  society.  Mr.  Nicholas  Simpson,  who  was  a 
prisoner  with  Tirlough  Oge  during  the  time  that  the  latter 
was  Governor  of  Armagh,  deposed  that,  though  Tirlough 
Oge  hated  his  brother's  brutal  ways,  he  was  afraid  to 
punish  any  of  the  gangs  of  murderers  who  terrorised  the 
inhabitants  of  the  town  over  which  he  ruled.  Even  the 
O'Reillys  in  Cavan  dared  do  no  more  than  protest  and 
rebuke. 

Among  primitive  peoples,  killing  and  torture,  where 
there  is  no  retaliation  and  no  restrictive  authority,  soon 
takes  the  form  of  a  contagious  disease.  Such  was  the  case 
in  Ulster  under  Phelim  O'Neil's  rule.  Even  the  women 
and  children  became  infected  with  the  contagion,  and 
vied  with  the  men  in  devilry.  Elizabeth  Price  deposed 
that  "  the  Irish  women  were  more  fierce  and  cruel  than 
the  men."  Elizabeth  Croker  gave  similar  evidence.  All 
alike,  women  as  well  as  men,  bragged  of  the  atrocities  they 
had  committed  as  though  of  some  mighty  feat  of  arms. 
Up  to  the  beginning  of  December  1641  cupidity  rather 
than  revenge  was  still  the  main  motive  behind  the  majority 
of  the  murders  ;  and  the  unfortunate  fact  that  torture, 
in  many  cases,  succeeded  in  discovering  the  hiding-places 
of  valuables,  encouraged  its  general  use.  The  wretched 
British  were  promised  relief  from  their  sufferings  if  they 
would  confess  where  their  money  was,  but  the  promise 
was  hardly  ever  kept.  Patrick  O'Kelly  and  Brian  O'Mullan 
put  a  rope  round  the  neck  of  William  Blundell,  and 
dragged  him  up  and  down  the  Blackwater  till  he  told 
them  where  he  had  hidden  £21.  Upon  getting  possession 
of  this  money  they  respited  him  for  the  moment,  but, 
after  the  Lisburn  defeat,  he  and  his  wife  and  three  children 
were  all  killed.  A  fourth  child,  who  managed  to  hide, 

1  Dep.  of  Michael  Harrison. 


1641]     TORTURES  INFLICTED  ON  THE  BRITISH     179 

was  afterwards  caught  and  drowned  by  Pat  Donnelly 
at  Knockearny.1  James  Gibson  was  half -hanged  and  then 
had  his  ears  cut  off  to  make  him  confess  where  his  money 
was,  which  he  finally  did,  whereupon  he  was  at  once  put 
to  death.  Mary  Harding  and  her  husband  were  put  into 
the  stocks  with  the  same  object,  and — as  soon  as  the 
secret  of  their  money  had  been  extracted — she  was  flogged 
to  death,  and  he  was  starved  to  death.1  Fifteen  Kinard 
men,  who  had  been  put  in  the  stocks  till  they  confessed 
their  money,  were  then  all  successively  killed  with  a 
skean  by  a  boy  of  under  fourteen.1 

Such  practices  became  of  daily  occurrence  all  over 
central  Ulster,  but  there  was  still  no  disposition  towards 
anything  in  the  nature  of  a  general  massacre.  The  British 
were  too  useful  as  slaves.  Appalling  brutalities  were 
practised  upon  such  as  obstinately  refused  to  disclose 
where  their  money  was  hidden.  William  Stewart,  we  are 
told,  had  collops  cut  off  him  while  alive,  red-hot  coals 
forced  into  his  mouth,  his  belly  ripped  up,  and  his  entrails 
wound  about  his  neck  and  wrists.4  The  twelve-year-old 
son  of  Thomas  Stratton  of  Newtownbutler  in  Fer- 
managh was  boiled  alive  in  a  cauldron,5  presumably  as 
a  means  of  bringing  pressure  to  bear  on  his  parents.  Mr. 
Watson  of  Loughgall  was  roasted  alive,  after  having  had  a 
collop  cut  out  of  each  buttock.8  Many  were  buried  alive.7 
In  many  cases,  no  doubt,  a  silence  which  was  attributed 
to  obstinacy  was  in  reality  due  to  inability  to  reveal 
that  which  did  not  exist. 

1  Dep.  of  Joan  Constable.  3  Dep.  of  Anne  Kennard. 

z  Dep.  of  Joan  Bidell.  *  Dep.  of  Andrew  Adair. 

6  Dep.  of  Rev.  George  Cottenham,  Alex.  Creichton,  Margaret  Perkins 
and  Elizabeth  Bursell. 

•  Dep.  of  Dr.  Robert  Maxwell.  7  Ibid. 


CHAPTER    X 

OPERATIONS   IN   ARMAGH 

IN  considering  the  extent  of  Sir  Phelim's  complicity  in  the 
atrocities  practised  on  the  British  colonists,  it  is  worthy 
of  notice  that  he  was  never  himself  present  when  those 
to  whom  he  had  promised  protection  were  murdered,  a 
circumstance  which  he  afterwards  put  forward  in  ex- 
tenuation of  his  crimes.  While  the  horrible  scenes,  al- 
ready described,  were  being  enacted  in  the  parish  church 
at  Loughgall,  Sir  Phdim  discreetly  remained  in  Armagh. 
After  three  days'  stay  in  the  county  town,  of  which  he  now 
had  complete  possession,  he  set  out,  accompanied  by  Sir 
Con  Magennis  and  Colonel  Plunket,  for  Lisburn  at  the 
head  of  a  formidable  force  of  4,000  men.  Lord  Conway's 
house  at  Brookhill,  five  miles  from  Lisburn,  was  reached 
on  November  27,  and  was  converted  into  the  temporary 
headquarters  of  the  three  leaders. 

Captain  Fisher,  who  commanded  Lord  Conway's  troop 
at  Lisburn,  learnt  on  the  26th  of  Sir  Phelim's  approach, 
and  at  once  sent  a  galloper  off  to  Sir  Arthur  Tyringham, 
who  was  at  Carrickfergus,  reporting  the  great  strength  of 
the  Irish  and  the  immediate  need  for  help.  Recognising 
the  urgency  of  the  appeal,  Tyringham  himself  rode  across 
with  thirty  men  of  Lord  Grandison's  troop,  which  was  all 
that  he  was  able  to  muster  at  the  moment.  Immediately 
upon  Tyringham's  arrival  at  Lisburn  he  and  Fisher  set 
to  work  to  raise  a  voluntary  defence  force  from  among 
Lord  Conway's  tenants.  These  tenants  had  formed  the 
greater  part  of  the  original  defence  force  under  Lawson, 
but,  after  the  failure  of  Sir  Con  Magennis's  attack  on  Lisburn 
at  the  end  of  October,  the  majority  had  dispersed  to  their 
farms,  which  they  found  denuded  by  the  Irish  of  everything 
of  value.  This  discovery  so  embittered  them  that  they 
were  only  too  ready  to  band  together  again  for  an  encounter 
in  the  open  with  those  who  had  so  meanly  despoiled  them 
180 


1641]      DEFEAT  OF  SIR  PHELIM  AT  LISBURN        181 

of  their  all.  The  muster  took  place  on  the  afternoon  of 
November  27,  and,  while  it  was  in  progress — to  the  great 
joy  of  all — Sir  George  Rawdon  was  seen  approaching  with 
reinforcements  in  the  shape  of  two  companies  with  which 
he  had  marched  from  Belfast.  Rawdon,  who  was  Lord 
Conway's  agent  and  the  tenant  of  his  house  at  Brookhill, 
had  been  in  London  when  the  rebellion  broke  out,  but, 
on  receipt  of  the  news,  he  at  once  took  steps  to  return  to 
his  post.  He  reached  Ireland  on  the  evening  of  the  26th, 
and,  on  learning  of  the  critical  situation  at  Lisburn,  put 
himself  at  the  head  of  two  of  the  Belfast  companies  and 
made  the  best  of  his  way  to  the  little  town  for  the  safety 
of  which  he  felt  he  was  in  a  great  measure  responsible. 
He  arrived,  as  already  described,  on  the  evening  of  the 
27th.  The  united  defence  force  now  amounted  to  500  foot, 
of  whom  80  had  muskets  and  the  rest  pikes  and  pitchforks, 
and  80  horse. 

There  was  no  rest  for  Rawdon  or  Tyringham  that  night. 
Throughout  the  26th  it  had  snowed  ;  the  snow  had  then 
turned  to  rain  and  had  been  followed  by  a  sharp  frost. 
The  streets  of  Lisburn  were  a  sheet  of  ice.  The  entire 
night  of  the  27th  was  spent  in  "roughing"  the  eighty 
horses  on  which  the  cavalry  of  the  defending  force  de- 
pended. 

At  daybreak  on  the  28th  the  Irish  attacked  in  two  bodies, 
which  simultaneously  advanced  on  opposite  sides  of  the 
town.  Their  attack  was  supported  by  the  fire  of  two  small 
field-pieces,  which  they  had  taken  from  BrookhUl.  They 
were  allowed  to  penetrate  well  into  the  town  before  Tyring- 
ham made  any  move.  Then  he  himself,  at  the  head  of 
half  the  horse,  charged  down  Castle  Street,  while  Rawdon 
with  the  remainder  charged  down  Bridge  Street.  The 
value  of  the  labour  spent  in  "  roughing  "  the  horses  was 
now  very  apparent,  for  the  British  horses  kept  their  feet, 
while  those  of  the  Irish  slipped  about  in  all  directions.  The 
result  of  the  fight  was  never  for  a  moment  in  doubt.  The 
Irish  turned  and  scattered,  and  the  fight  became  a  mere 
pursuit.  "A  Brief  Relation,"  already  referred  to,  tells 
us  that  "  300  were  killed  in  Castle  Street  and  200  in  Bridge 
Street,"  and  adds  that  "the  number  slain  was  found 
to  be  three  times  the  number  of  those  that  fought  against 
them."  l  This  is  clearly  an  exaggeration.  On  the  other 

i  «•  A  Brief  Relation,"  Ulster  Journal  of  Archaology. 


182  OPERATIONS  IN  ARMAGH  [CHAP,  x 

hand,  the  figures  given  in  the  Calendar  of  State  Papers 
(Addenda)  have  all  the  appearance  of  accuracy.  Accord- 
ing to  this  account  the  Irish  lost  300  killed  and  six  colours. 
The  loss  on  the  British  side  was  only  twenty  killed,  among 
whom  was  Captain  Boyd.  Sir  George  Rawdon,  Captain 
Burley  and  Captain  St.  John  (the  late  Governor  of  Tan- 
daragee)  were  wounded.  Sir  Phelim,  after  burning  Brook- 
hill,  where  he  had  remained  throughout  the  fight,  retired 
sullenly  to  his  own  county. 

This  Lisburn  affair  proved  the  most  disastrous  defeat 
that  Sir  Phelim  in  person  had  yet  met  with,  and  it  seems 
to  have  brought  to  the  surface  all  the  submerged  savagery 
of  his  nature.  From  this  time  on  he  seems  to  have  dis- 
carded the  r61e  of  the  humane  leader,  powerless  to  check 
the  excesses  of  his  followers.  Disappointment  and  rage 
seem  to  have  had  the  effect  of  turning  him,  for  the  time 
being,  into  an  unreasoning  fiend.  "  Their  loss  and  over- 
throw did  so  enrage  the  rebels,"  says  the  author  of  a 
"  Brief  Relation,"  "  that,  for  several  days  and  weeks  after, 
they  murdered  many  hundreds  of  Protestants  whom  they 
had  kept  prisoners  in  the  counties  of  Armagh  and  Tyrone 
and  tormented  them  with  several  manner  of  deaths." 

Carte  throws  the  responsibility  for  these  murders 
wholly  on  Sir  Phelim  and  his  diabolical  temper.  "For, 
as  his  judgment  was  very  weak,"  he  says,  "  so  were  his 
passions  very  strong,  and  on  some  occasions  very  near 
approaching  to  rage  and  frenzy.  For,  upon  any  ill  success, 
he  would  in  a  fury  order  his  prisoners  to  be  murdered,  or 
some  act  of  barbarity,  cruelty  or  senseless  murder  to  be 
done."  The  first  and  one  of  the  most  violent  of  these 
outbursts  was  after  Lisburn.  We  have  others  of  almost 
equal  violence  following  on  the  defeats  at  Castle  Derg, 
Augher,  Drogheda  and  Ardee,  but  it  was  undoubtedly 
Lisburn  which  set  the  fashion  of  resorting  to  massacre 
in  order  to  avenge  defeat.  Most  of  the  horrid  acts  recorded 
in  the  thirty-two  volumes  of  depositions  are  described  as 
taking  place  "  after  Lisnagarvey "  (Lisburn).  What 
orders  Sir  Phelim  may  secretly  have  issued  in  "  his  rage 
and  frenzy  "  we  do  not  know,  but  we  do  know  that  the 
effect  was  very  far-reaching.  He  himself,  with  1,500  men, 
went  on  to  Tullahogue,  where  it  was  contended  by  many 
that  he  had  himself  invested  as  the  O'Neil ;  and  thence 
he  proceeded  to  Strabane?  which  he  reached  on  December 


1641]  MASSACRE  IN  KILMORE  188 

14. l  Lady  Strabane — whose  husband  had  died  the  pre- 
vious year — had  already  agreed  to  betray  the  Castle  into 
his  hands.  On  his  approach,  a  few  shots  were  fired  for 
the  sake  of  appearances,  but  they  were  purposely  aimed 
wide,  and  Sir  Phelim  made  a  triumphant  entry  into  the 
town,  where,  for  the  moment,  we  may  leave  him,  paying 
court  to  the  friendly  widow. 

In  the  meanwhile,  many  of  the  Irish  from  the  Blackwater 
district,  who  had  been  wounded  at  Lisburn,  had  returned 
to  their  homes,  smarting  no  less  from  their  personal  in- 
juries than  from  the  sense  of  defeat.  Either  from  these 
causes,  or  as  a  result  of  secret  orders  issued  by  Sir  Phelim, 
the  parish  of  Kilmore  now  became  the  scene  of  some  very 
dreadful  outrages.  It  was  put  about  that  the  murders 
which  took  place  in  that  parish  were  in  the  main  a  pre- 
cautionary measure  aimed  at  preventing  the  British  from 
joining  their  victorious  fellow-countrymen  at  Lisburn. 
There  is  a  certain  probability  in  this  theory  owing  to  the 
marked  preponderance  of  men  among  the  victims.  The 
only  woman's  name  given  in  the  list  is  that  of  Mrs.  Blundell, 
who  was  killed  with  her  three  children,  but  of  men's  names 
we  have  :  Hugh  Clarke,  Richard  Rutter,  William  Blundell 
(whose  disclosure  of  his  money  has  already  been  described), 
John  Hale,  Thomas  and  James  Orton,  Thomas  and  John 
Edmonds,  John  Fillis,  Edward  Moore,  James  Pownall, 
Ralph  Clayton,  Geoffrey  Jackson,  Thomas  Downall, 
Hugh  More  and  his  son  and  Daniel  Matchett.*  Ellen 
Matchett,  the  wife  of  the  last-named,  who  was  a  con- 
siderable landowner,  managed  to  escape,  half  demented, 
to  Hockley,  where — with  many  others — she  took  refuge 
in  the  house  of  Mrs.  Doyne.*  This  good  woman,  who  was 
a  Protestant,  and  the  daughter  of  Sir  George  Sexton, 
sheltered,  we  are  told,  no  fewer  than  twenty-nine  of 
the  hunted  British  in  her  house.  The  secret  of  her 
power  apparently  lay  in  the  fact  that  her  son  Michael 
Doyne  was  able,  by  means  of  Lady  Bellew  of  Castletown 
in  Louth,  to  obtain  for  Sir  Phelim  exact  information  as  to 
all  the  intended  movements  of  the  British.4  Mrs.  Doyne  had 
been  a  widow  when  she  married  Michael  Doyne  of  Knock- 
earny.  After  her  marriage,  she  and  Doyne  migrated  to 

1  Dep.  of  Michael  Harrison. 

1  Dep.  of  Anne  Smith  and  Margaret  Clarke. 

3  Dep   of  Jane  Beare.  4  Relation  of  Francis  Sacheverell. 


184  OPERATIONS  IN  ARMAGH  [CHAP,  x 

Hockley  in  Armagh,  where  her  late  husband's  property 
was  situated.  She  had  a  daughter  named  Theresa,  who 
was  a  Roman  Catholic,  and  who  was,  on  many  occasions, 
heard  to  express  the  hope  that  she  would  yet  live  to  see 
her  mother  hanged  for  the  part  she  had  played  in  rescuing 
the  British.1  This  remarkable  woman,  in  fact,  appears  to 
have  had  the  whole  of  her  family  against  her.  Her  hus- 
band, Michael  Doyne,  we  are  told,  had  murdered  all  the 
British  around  his  old  home  in  Knockearny,  to  the  number 
of  forty-four.1  At  Hockley,  however,  which  was  his  wife's 
property,  he  had  to  content  himself  with  robbing  them  of 
all  their  goods  and  stripping  them  of  their  clothes.  Mrs. 
Doyne,  in  spite  of  the  antagonism  of  her  husband,  son  and 
daughter,  successfully  held  her  own  to  the  end,  and  that 
notwithstanding  the  very  real  dangers  that  she  herself 
incurred  in  carrying  out  her  charitable  work.  In  the  whole 
history  of  the  rising,  there  is  nothing  more  remarkable 
than  the  courage  and  devotion  of  this  woman. 

1  Dep.  of  Dr.  Robert  Maxwell.  2  Dep.  of  Jane  Beare. 


CHAPTER  XI 

OPERATIONS    IN   TYRONE 

WE  left  Sir  Phelim  at  Strabane  paying  court  to  the  lady 
of  that  place,  and,  in  order  to  get  a  proper  understanding 
of  his  future  movements,  it  becomes  necessary  to  take  a 
retrospective  glance  at  the  formation  of  that  remarkable 
corps  known  as  the  Lagan  Force. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  the  King's  first  act,  on 
learning  of  the  rising,  had  been  to  send  over  a  commission 
authorising  Sir  Robert  Stewart  to  raise  a  regiment  as  a 
charge  on  the  State.  Sir  Robert  had,  in  fact,  anticipated 
this  commission  by  starting  to  raise  a  defence  corps  from 
the  moment  that  he  received  warning  of  the  rising.  It 
would  appear  that  this  warning  reached  the  two  Stewarts 
at  Newtown  by  means  of  a  messenger  which  the  Bishop 
of  Down  sent  off  from  Lisburn  as  soon  as  Sir  Arthur 
Tyringham  had  brought  news  to  that  place  of  the  loss  of 
Newry.  A  second  messenger — as  we  have  already  seen — 
was  then  sent  off  to  Lord  Montgomery  in  the  Ards  ;  the 
Bishop  himself  and  all  the  residents  fled  towards  Belfast, 
and  a  horseman  was  sent  off  to  warn  the  north-west.1 
By  a  light  rider  on  a  good  horse  the  distance  between  Lis- 
burn and  Omagh  can  be  easily  covered  in  a  night.  From 
Omagh,  fresh  messengers  were  sent  out  to  Clogher  and 
Newtown,  and  the  latter  place  at  once  despatched  its 
own  horsemen  to  warn  Strabane  and  Derry.  It  is  probable 
that  the  Bishop  of  Down  sent  a  third  messenger  to  Coleraine, 
for  we  know  that  Archibald  Stewart  at  Ballymena  received 
his  first  warning  from  Coleraine. 

Later  on,  when  the  controversy  arose  between  Sir 
Frederic  Hamilton  and  Sir  William  Cole  over  the  failure 
of  the  latter  to  warn  the  province  effectively,  in  spite  of 
the  private  information  he  had  received,  Cole  insisted  that 
he  had  sent  a  messenger  named  Francis  Barnaby  from 

i  See  Cal.  State  Papers,  Addenda,  October  24,  1641. 


186  OPERATIONS  IN  TYRONE  [CHAP,  xi 

Enniskillen  to  Newtown  and  Derry.  Sir  Frederic  Ham- 
ilton, on  the  other  hand,  who  was  staying  in  Derry  at  the 
time  with  the  Governor,  Sir  John  Vaughan  (who  was  also 
his  father-in-law),  swore  that  no  such  messenger  had  reached 
either  Newtown  or  Derry,  and  disputed  the  fact  that  any 
had  been  despatched.1  The  only  warning,  he  said,  that 
reached  that  part  of  the  world  had  been  through  the 
Bishop  of  Down.  On  receipt  of  the  news  at  Derry 
Sir  John  Vaughan  and  Robert  Thornton,  the  Mayor, 
undertook  the  organisation  of  the  defence  works,  while 
Sir  Frederic  Hamilton  made  his  way  back  to  his  home 
at  Manor  Hamilton  in  Co.  Leitrim,  where  he  was  able  to  get 
together  a  force  of  250  of  the  neighbouring  British,  with 
whom  he  successfully  defended  his  house  throughout  the 
course  of  the  rising.2 

Sir  William  Stewart  of  Aghentain  and  his  younger  and 
more  famous  brother,  Sir  Robert  Stewart,  were  members 
of  a  Wigtonshire  family.  They  were  both  at  Newtown 
when  the  warning  horseman  reached  that  place  from 
Omagh.  Sir  William  at  once  started  off  for  Raphoe, 
where  his  own  regiment  was,  and  set  to  work  to  make  its 
strength  up  to  500  by  enlisting  voluntary  recruits  from 
among  the  farmers,  labourers  and  artisans  of  the  Lagan 
(Lough  Swilly)  district.  At  the  same  time  Sir  Robert 
Stewart  was  similarly  engaged  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Newtown,  where  he  succeeded  in  raising  the  regiment  for 
which  he  held  the  King's  commission.  The  third  regiment, 
which  at  this  time  completed  the  force,  was  raised  in  the 
first  instance  from  among  the  Ballyshannon  colonists. 
The  Castle  of  Ballyshannon,  which  afforded  shelter  and 
protection  to  numbers  of  refugees  from  east  Fermanagh 
as  well  as  from  south  Donegal,  was  repeatedly  attacked 
by  Rory  Maguire's  father-in-law  Col.  Nugent  during  the 
earlier  stages  of  the  rising,  but  with  a  complete  absence  of 
success.  As  elsewhere,  defence  corps  were  formed  from 
among  the  able-bodied  men  who  had  crowded  into  Bally- 
shannon with  their  families  for  protection.  One  of  the 
regiments  so  formed  was  under  the  command  of  Sir  Ralph 
Gore,  and  as  soon  as  it  became  apparent  that  Sir  Henry 
Folliott,  the  Governor  of  Ballyshannon,  could  easily  hold 
his  own  against  any  attacks  upon  the  place,  it  was  decided 

1  Information  of  Sir  Frederic  Hamilton. 

2  Remonstrance  of  Sir  Frederic  HamiJtop, 


1641]  SIR  WILLIAM  AND  SIR  ROBERT  STEWART  187 
between  him  and  Gore  that  the  latter  should  move  his 
regiment  north  with  a  view  to  succouring  and  protecting 
the  distressed  colonists  in  central  Donegal.  Here  the 
regiment  operated  with  great  success,  and  was  fortunate 
enough  to  rescue  a  number  of  British  women  and  children, 
who  were  afterwards  concentrated  in  a  camp  under  the 
protective  wing  of  the  regiment.  For  a  time  all  went 
well,  but,  as  the  winter  advanced,  the  scanty  ammunition 
of  the  regiment  became  wholly  exhausted  and  food  supplies 
became  almost  unobtainable.  All  were  soon  in  an  ex- 
tremely precarious  position,  being  hemmed  in  on  all  sides 
by  masses  of  the  Irish.  An  urgent  appeal  for  help  was 
sent  to  the  Stewarts,  in  response  to  which  Sir  Robert 
Stewart  marched  over  the  Barnesmore  gap  with  his  own 
regiment  and  three  companies  of  Sir  William  Stewart's 
regiment,  and  brought  the  whole  assembly  of  British 
safely  through  to  Raphoe,  after  a  running  combat  with  the 
Irish  which  lasted  seven  hours.1  The  women,  children 
and  old  men  were  then  sent  on  to  Derry,  and  Gore's 
regiment  was  officially  taken  over  by  his  subordinate, 
Audley  Mervyn  of  Castle  Trellick,  a  son  of  Sir  Henry 
Mervyn  of  Petersfield,  Hants,  and  afterwards  Speaker 
of  the  House  of  Commons.  Gore  himself  died  shortly 
afterwards. 

The  nominal  leader  of  the  Lagan  Force  at  its  inaugura- 
tion was  Sir  William  Stewart,  who  assumed  the  command 
by  virtue  of  his  seniority  and  large  landed  interests  in 
Tyrone  and  Donegal.  In  addition  to  the  Castle  of  Aghen- 
tain,  which  he  had  built,  he  owned  Kilmacrenan  Castle 
and  Newtownstewart,  the  latter  of  which  he  had  in- 
herited from  his  father-in-law,  Sir  Robert  Newcomen, 
together  with  the  neighbouring  town  lands  of  Lislap, 
Tullymuck  and  Legland.  He  also  owned  consider- 
able property  in  the  Munterloney  district.  Although 
Sir  William  was  the  nominal  commander  of  the  Lagan 
Force,  the  confidence  of  the  colonists  was  mainly  in  Sir 
Robert,  who  was  not  only  a  very  much  younger  man 
than  his  brother,  but  who  had  seen  a  good  deal  of  active 
service  abroad.  All  the  chief  exploits  of  the  Lagan  Force 
were  achieved  under  the  leadership  of  Sir  Robert  Stewart, 
who  by  degrees  superseded  his  brother,  and  in  the  end 
was  unanimously  elected  Commander-in-Chief.  So  highly 

1  "  Relation  "  of  Audley  Mervyn. 


188  OPERATIONS   IN  TYRONE  [CHAP,  xi 

esteemed  was  Sir  Robert,  and  so  universal  was  the  confi- 
dence in  his  military  capacity,  that,  on  the  first  warning 
of  the  outbreak,  he  became  the  focus-point  on  which 
all  north-west  Ulster  converged.  On  October  23  there 
were  many  horsemen  galloping  with  red  spurs  about  north 
Ulster.  One  of  these,  despatched  by  Sir  Robert  Stewart, 
brought  the  news  of  the  rising  to  Sir  Thomas  Staples 
at  Cookstown,  where  he  happened  to  be  at  the  moment. 
Sir  Thomas's  home  was  at  Moneymore,  where  he  had 
built  "  a  very  fair  and  strong  Castle  "  in  which  Lady  Staples 
was  at  the  moment  residing.  Instead  of  hurrying  back 
to  defend  his  lady  and  property,  Staples,  assisted  by 
Colonel  Saunderson,  collected  as  many  of  the  British  as 
he  could  from  between  Cookstown  and  Dungannon,  and 
marched  them  twenty  miles  over  the  Munterloney  Moun- 
tains to  Newtown,  leaving  Moneymore  and  Lady  Staples 
to  their  fate. 

On  arriving  at  Newtown  most  of  the  able-bodied  men  of 
the  party  joined  Sir  Robert  Stewart's  regiment,  but  ten  or 
twelve  days  later — on  learning  that  no  personal  violence 
was  being  offered  to  the  British  residents  in  east  Tyrone — 
500  of  those  who  had  accompanied  Sir  Thomas  Staples 
returned  to  their  homes.  The  above  figure,  which  pre- 
sumably includes  women  and  children,  is  furnished  by 
Colonel  Audley  Mervyn,  and  the  same  authority  tells  us 
that  almost  all  those  who  so  returned  were  subsequently 
murdered.1  Sir  Thomas  Staples  himself  went  on  to 
Derry. 

The  only  excuse  for,  and  indeed  the  only  explanation 
of  Sir  Thomas  Staples's  desertion  of  his  wife,  his  district 
and  its  resident  British,  is  that  Moneymore  had  already 
been  surprised  and  seized  by  Cormac  O'Hagan  before 
Sir  Robert  Stewart's  warning  reached  Staples  at  Cooks- 
town.  This  must,  in  fact,  have  been  the  case,  for  we 
know  that  Moneymore  was  seized  on  the  23rd  and  Staples 
cannot  possibly  have  received  his  warning  before  the  24th. 
Its  recovery  was  then,  in  all  probability,  beyond  his  power 
even  to  attempt,  for  the  Irish  held  Lady  Staples  as  hostage, 
and  we  may  be  quite  sure  that  any  such  attempt  would 
have  resulted  in  her  instant  execution. 

Moneymore  was  captured  for  the  Irish  by  Cormac 
O'Hagan.  On  October  23  he  surprised  the  place  and  made 

1  "Relation"  of  Audley  Mervyn. 


1641]  MONEYMORE  AND  LISSAN  189 

prisoners  of  all  the  residents,  including  Lady  Staples,  who 
was  confined  in  her  own  Castle.  One  man  only  of  the  name 
of  Russell,  who  was  the  resident  agent  for  the  Drapers' 
Company,  was  killed,  but  otherwise  the  British  were  merely 
robbed  and  stripped.  Moneymore  was  particularly  unfortu- 
nate in  the  fact  that  its  three  leading  men,  Sir  Thomas 
Staples  and  the  two  Clotworthys,  were  all  away  at  the  time 
of  the  outbreak,  otherwise  the  Castle,  which  we  are  told 
was  very  strong,  would  undoubtedly  have  been  garrisoned 
and  defended.  As  it  was,  there  appears  to  have  been 
no  attempt  at  resistance.  The  place  was  one  of  the  first 
seized  by  the  rebels,  and  the  surprise  was  complete.  Cormac 
O'Hagan,  who  was  a  resident  in  the  village,  appointed 
himself  Governor,  but  did  not  occupy  the  Castle,  preferring 
to  remain  in  his  own  house,  to  which  he  transferred  all 
the  valuables  from  the  Castle  and  the  houses  of  the  two 
Clotworthys.1  While  O'Hagan  was  taking  possession  of 
Moneymore,  Neil  Oge  O'Quin  seized  the  neighbouring 
settlement  of  Lissan,  also  without  opposition.  Here 
again,  only  one  man  of  the  name  of  Higginson  was  killed, 
the  rest  of  the  British  being  merely  stripped  and  im- 
prisoned.2 Unhappily  this  respite  was  only  temporary. 

We  may  now  return  to  Newtown,  henceforth  to  be 
known  as  Newtownstewart,  which,  during  the  first  few 
days  of  the  rising,  was  the  centre  of  activity  in  north- 
west Ulster.  The  moment  the  Bishop  of  Down's  messenger 
had  reached  Omagh,  all  the  British  residents  in  that 
barony  made  their  way  north  to  Newtownstewart.  A 
horseman  was  sent  off  to  warn  Clogher,  with  the  result 
that  most  of  the  residents  in  that  barony  were  able  to 
take  refuge  either  in  Augher  or  Aghentain  Castles.  As  to 
the  fate  of  Aughnacloy  we  know  nothing,  for  its  name 
does  not  once  appear  in  the  records  of  the  period.  On 
the  western  border  of  the  county  the  walls  of  Castle  Derg 
gave  shelter  to  the  scattered  colonists  in  that  part,  and 
even  Strabane— in  spite  of  its  occupation  by  the  Roman 
Catholic  Hamiltons— was  used  as  a  rallying  point  for 
the  British  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood.  From  all 
these  centres  there  was,  from  that  time  on,  a  constant 
flow  of  refugees  towards  Londonderry.  Even  Bally- 
shannon  and  Enniskillen  sent  their  periodical  convoys 

i  "Delation"  of  Col.  Clotworthy. 
«  Dep.  of  Lady  Staples. 


190  OPERATIONS  IN  TYRONE  [CHAP,  xi 

of  non-combatants  towards  the  Foyle,1  passing  them  on 
at  agreed  points  into  the  keeping  of  the  Lagan  Force, 
who  escorted  them  in  safety  to  their  destination.  The 
attraction  of  Derry,  from  the  refugees'  point  of  view, 
lay  in  the  facilities  which  it  offered  for  reaching  England 
by  sea  ;  so  exceptional  indeed  were  these,  that  the  Foyle 
City,  throughout  the  period  of  the  rising,  was  free  from 
the  congestion  which  caused  such  terrible  mortality  in 
Coleraine. 

The  City  itself,  at  the  first  alarm,  was  put  into  a  state 
of  defence  under  the  superintendence  of  the  Governor 
and  Mayor.  Seven  companies  of  100  men  each  were 
raised  from  among  the  citizens  and  put  under  the  com- 
mand of  Robert  Thornton  the  Mayor,  Simon  Pitt,  Henry 
Finch,  Hewit  Finch,  Henry  Osborne,  John  Kilmer  and, 
later  on,  Robert  Lawson.  The  City  had  four  guns,  but 
no  muskets,  all  these  having — in  obedience  to  one  of  the 
last  orders  of  the  late  Lord  Strafford — been  sent  to  Dublin 
during  the  spring  of  the  year.  All  that  was  discovered 
in  the  way  of  arms  were  some  old  decayed  calivers  and 
100  swords,  with  which  the  seven  companies  were  most 
inadequately  equipped.2  As  matters  turned  out  the 
insufficiency  of  arms  had  no  serious  effects,  for  Derry 
itself  was  never  attacked.  Two  of  its  companies,  however, 
fought  side  by  side  with  the  Lagan  Force  at  the  battle 
of  Glenmaquin,  and  contributed  in  no  small  degree  to  Sir 
Phelim's  heavy  overthrow  on  that  occasion. 

The  first  stronghold  in  north-west  Ulster  to  be  attacked 
was — as  might  be  supposed  from  its  geographical  position 
— Augher  Castle.  This  Castle  had  originally  been  built 
by  Cormac  McBaron,  Tyrone's  brother.  It  had  been 
captured  by  Chichester  in  1603,  and,  after  Cormac  had 
been  sent  to  the  Tower,  it  was  bestowed  upon  his  illegiti- 
mate son  Brian  Crossach,  a  pension  of  £100  a  year  being 
at  the  same  time  conferred  on  Cormac's  wife.  In  1615, 
however,  Brian  was  convicted  of  complicity  in  Rory 
O'Cahan's  rebellion  and  executed,  and  the  Castle  definitely 
passed  out  of  the  hands  of  the  native  Irish.  It  was  a 
place  of  considerable  size  and  strength  and  mounted  two 
brass  sakers  of  ancient  pattern.  When  the  1641  rising 
broke  out,  it  was  in  the  occupation  of  a  very  young  man 

1  Letter  of  Sir  William  Cole  to  House  of  Lords,  January  11,  1644. 
»  Reid. 


1641]  SIEGE  OF  AUGHER  CASTLE  191 

named  Archibald  Erskine,  the  son  of  Sir  James  Erskine, 
who  was  away  at  the  time.  There  was  also  staying  at 
the  Castle  a  somewhat  older  man  of  the  name  of  Archibald 
Hamilton.  It  soon  became  very  crowded,  owing  to  the 
number  of  refugees  who  flocked  to  it  for  shelter  from  all 
parts  of  the  barony  of  Clogher. 

Augher  was  too  near  Sir  Phelim's  house  at  Kinard  to 
be  long  left  unmolested,  and  the  Clogher  refugees  had 
barely  gained  the  friendly  shelter  of  its  walls  before  it 
was  invested  by  a  force  of  2,000  Irish.  No  assault  was 
attempted,  and,  at  the  end  of  a  week,  the  two  young 
commanders,  wearying  of  inaction,  sallied  forth  with 
eighty  horse  and  twelve  musketeers,  and  succeeded  in 
putting  to  flight  the  whole  of  the  investing  force,  which 
lost  nearly  100  men  in  the  encounter,  or  rather  in  the 
stampede  which  followed  on  the  charge.  On  the  British 
side  Captain  Barclay  and  a  certain  number  of  the  rank 
and  file  were  killed,  and  among  the  wounded  the  name  of 
Archibald  Hamilton  was  returned.1  The  latter 's  wound, 
however,  was  clearly  of  no  very  serious  character,  for  two 
days  afterwards  he  made  a  raid  into  the  Trough  country 
(Co.  Monaghan)  and — after  a  successful  encounter  with  Neil 
McKenna  McMahon — brought  in  a  number  of  cattle  for 
the  use  of  the  castle  inmates. 

So  the  position  remained  till  the  middle  of  December, 
when  Sir  Phelim  arrived  at  Strabane.  Every  stronghold  in 
north-west  ^Ulster  had  so  far  successfully  resisted  all  the 
attacks  of  the  Irish,  and  Sir  Phelim's  arrival  on  the  scene 
was  no  doubt  mainly  inspired  by  the  idea  of  repairing 
the  errors  and  shortcomings  of  others.  He  determined  to 
commence  operations  in  west  Tyrone  by  capturing  Castle 
Derg,  and,  with  that  end  in  view,  marched  out  of  Strabane 
at  the  head  of  the  bulk  of  the  1,500  men  with  whom  he 
had  arrived.  Sir  Phelim's  success  against  this  fortress, 
however,  was  no  greater  than  that  of  his  predecessor,  and 
he  was  repulsed  with  considerable  loss.  Once  again — as  at 
Lisburn— Sir  Phelim's  disappointment  at  his  unexpected 
reverse  called  all  his  worst  passions  into  play.  In  his  rage 
he  issued  orders  to  Brian  McArt  Oge  O'Neil  (a  nephew  of 
Owen  Roe)  to  hunt  up  the  district  and  to  kill  every  man, 
woman  and  child  of  British  blood  that  he  could  find  outside 
the  walls.  Having  eased  his  mind  to  this  extent  he  then, 

i  "Relation"  of  Audley  Mervyn. 
14 


192  OPERATIONS  IN  TYRONE  [CHAP.  XI 

in  the  latter  half  of  December,  passed  on  to  Augher, 
whither  Rory  Maguire,  in  obedience  to  orders  received, 
had  already  marched  with  his  Fermanagh  army  and  a 
siege  gun.1  Preparations,  in  short,  on  a  very  important 
scale  had  been  made  for  the  reduction  of  this  place. 

As  soon  as  Sir  Phelim  arrived  on  the  scene  the  siege- 
gun  was  placed  in  position  and  the  walls  battered  till  a 
suitable  breach  had  been  made.  A  very  dark  night  was 
then  selected  for  a  general  assault  on  the  breach,  but 
the  effort  proved  a  failure,  the  Irish  being  beaten  off 
with  the  loss  of  200  of  their  men. 

Some  very  barbarous  acts  of  revenge  followed  on  this 
reverse.  Sir  Phelim,  exhibiting  his  usual  demoniacal 
rage  upon  defeat,  set  the  example  by  sending  off  Mulmore 
O'Donnell  with  orders  to  exterminate  every  British 
resident  in  the  three  parishes  of  Mullaghbrack,  Lough- 
gilly  and  Kilcluney,  situated  in  the  Fews,  i.e.  the 
central  part  of  Co.  Armagh.2  Why  these  three  parishes, 
which  are  far  from  the  scene  of  action,  were  selected 
is  not  known,  nor  are  the  actual  results,  which  followed  on 
the  order,  known.  One  deponent  computes  that  1,500 
were  killed  in  the  three  parishes,  but  there  is  no  con- 
firmation of  this  figure,  which  may  be  taken  as  one  of 
the  exaggerations  so  common  to  the  period.  All  that 
is  known  for  certain  is  that  Mr.  Mercer,  minister  of  Mullagh- 
brack, and  Mr.  Burns,  curate  of  Loughgilly,  were  among 
the  victims,  and  that  some  hundreds  were  saved  from  the 
fury  of  the  assassins  by  Henry  O'Neil  of  Glasdromin. 
Tirlough  Oge,  at  that  time  Governor  of  Armagh,  was 
also  instrumental  in  saving  many  of  the  British  from 
the  fate  prepared  for  them  by  his  brother.* 

While  Sir  Phelim's  emissaries  were  retaliating  in  Co. 
Armagh  for  the  Augher  defeat,  the  rank  and  file  of  the 
defeated  army  were  engaged  in  looking  nearer  at  hand 
for  suitable  objects  for  their  vengeance.  These — in  the 
absence  of  any  human  beings  of  British  blood — were 
ultimately  found  in  the  British  cattle.  "  Their  hatred 
of  the  English  was  such,"  Dr.  Robert  Maxwell  stated 
in  his  evidence  before  the  commission,  "  that,  at  the 
siege  of  Augher,  they  would  not  even  kill  the  English 
cattle,  but  cut  collops  out  of  them  being  alive,  letting 

1  "Relation"  of  Audley  Mervyn.  *  Dep.  of  James  Shaw. 

*  Dep.  of  James  Shaw. 


1641]  AGHENTAIN  CASTLE  193 

them  roar  till  they  had  no  flesh  on  their  backs,  so  that 
sometimes  a  beast  would  live  for  two  or  three  days  in 
that  torment."  > 

Sir  Phelim  made  no  second  attempt  upon  Augher. 
In  a  very  evil  frame  of  mind  he  went  back  to  Kinard, 
while  Rory  Maguire  returned  to  Fermanagh  after  making 
a  passing  attack  upon  Sir  William  Stewart's  Castle  at 
Aghentain,  from  which,  however,  he  was  successfully 
repulsed  by  Captain  Maxwell,  High  Sheriff  of  the  county, 
who  was  in  occupation  at  the  time.* 

1  Dep.  of  Dr.  Robert  Maxwell.         *  "Relation"  of  Audley  Mervyn. 


CHAPTER  XII 

CHRISTMAS    1641    IN   ULSTER 

ALTHOUGH  the  Irish  had  now  been  three  times  defeated 
before  the  walls  of  Augher,  and  although  they  showed  no 
present  disposition  to  renew  the  attack,  the  breaches 
made  in  the  walls  and  the  losses  sustained  by  the  garrison 
in  the  various  attacks  had  so  weakened  them  that  they 
were  neither  in  a  position  to  resist  another  determined 
attack  nor  to  sally  forth  in  search  of  much-needed  pro- 
visions. Representations  to  this  effect  were  made  to 
Sir  Robert  Stewart  at  Newtownstewart,  and,  in  response, 
he  sent  Colonel  Saunderson,  Colonel  Audley  Mervyn  and 
Sergeant-Major  Galbraith  with-  500  foot  and  100  horse 
to  the  relief  of  the  two  Castles  of  Augher  and  Aghentain. 
This  force  took  up  its  quarters  at  Clogher  (three  miles 
from  Augher)  and,  on  the  day  following  its  arrival,  made 
a  raid  into  Fermanagh  in  search  of  food.  On  the  way 
a  select  storming  party,  under  Ensign  Long,  carried 
Donough  Maguire's  Castle  by  assault  and  put  all  the 
garrison  to  the  sword.  A  number  of  cattle  were  collected, 
with  which  the  raiding  party  then  made  its  way  back  to 
Augher.1 

In  view  of  the  horrible  acts  of  retaliation  which  followed 
upon  this  raid,  it  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  that  the 
killing  of  the  garrison  of  Donough  Maguire's  Castle  during 
its  capture  by  assault  was  a  perfectly  legitimate  act  of 
war.  It  was  the  invariable  practice  in  the  wars  of  those 
days  that  no  quarter  was  given  in  cases  where  a  fortress 
refused  to  surrender  and  had  to  be  carried  by  assault, 
the  justification  being  found  in  the  extra  loss  of  life  which 
an  assault  necessarily  entailed  on  the  attacking  party. 
So  generally  was  this  rule  recognised,  that  the  garrison  of 
a  Castle  which  was  carried  by  assault  would  always  fight 

1  "  Relation  "  of  Audley  Mervyn. 
194 


1641]  MASSACRE  AT  LISGOOL  195 

to  the  last,  and  be  killed  fighting,  knowing  well  that 
they  could  expect  no  mercy.  To  the  Irish,  however, 
the  observances  of  European  warfare  made  no  appeal. 
The  inmates  of  one  of  their  Castles  had  been  killed,  and 
they  determined  that,  in  retaliation,  the  inmates  of 
British  Castles  should  be  killed,  even  though  the  possession 
of  these  Castles  should  be  obtained  by  other  means  than 
by  assault.  The  day  after  Saunderson  had  returned  to 
Augher  with  Maguire's  cattle,  i.e.  on  December  23,  Cahill 
Maguire  of  Knocknimy  and  Neil  O'Hugh,  one  of  Sir 
Phelim's  foster-brothers,  accompanied  by  a  priest  named 
Cassidy,1  with  a  mob  of  2,400  on  their  heels,  arrived 
at  Lord  Hastings's  house  at  Lisgool,  which  was  at  the  time 
occupied  by  Mr.  Segrave.  Since  October  23  seventy- 
four  British  men,  women  and  children  had  eked  out  a 
miserable  existence  in  this  house,1  clothed  in  a  few  filthy 
rags,  living  on  refuse  scraps  and  debarred  from  stirring 
out  of  doors.  It  was  now  resolved  to  destroy  them. 
Lisgool,  which  had  been  built  by  Sir  John  Davies  in  1615, 
is  not  described  as  a  Castle,  but  as  "  a  fair  stone  house  " ; 
but,  in  any  case,  it  would  appear  to  have  been  sufficiently 
strong  to  resist  all  attempts  at  capture  by  force.  Audley 
Mervyn,  in  his  "  Relation,"  says  that — like  Tully — it  was 
surrendered  to  Maguire  upon  promise  of  quarter.  The 
inmates  were  then  driven  to  the  upper  story,  and  the  lower 
story  was  set  fire  to.  All  those  who  attempted  to  escape  the 
flames  were  thrust  back  with  pikes.  The  shrieks  of 
those  within  were  a  source  of  great  amusement  to  the 
onlookers,  who  found  pleasure  in  imitating  their  cries, 
and  in  exclaiming  "  How  sweetly  do  they  fry ! "  The 
only  two  within  the  walls  who  were  saved  were  James 
Dunbar,  the  son  and  heir  of  Sir  John  Dunbar,  and  a 
woman  whose  name  is  not  recorded.  Seventy-two  were 
burned.8 

On  the  same  day,  whilst  the  Lisgool  tragedy  was  being 
enacted,  Rory  Maguire  arrived  at  Monea  Castle  and 
there,  according  to  the  evidence  given  by  John  Carmichael 
at  Lord  Maguire's  trial,  burned  eighteen  people  in  the 
church.4  An  Irishman  named  John  Cormack,  on  the 
other  hand,  in  his  evidence  at  Sir  Phelim's  trial,  stated 

1  Dep.  of  Charles  Campbell. 

2  Letter  of  Sir  William  Cole  to  House  of  Lords,  January  11,  1644. 

3  Dep.  of  John  Simpson  and  Thomas  Winslow  and  Thomas  Grant. 
*  See  Memoirs  of  Sir  James  Turner. 


196  CHRISTMAS   1641   IN  ULSTER          [CHAP,  xn 

that  only  eight  were  killed.  The  Castle  itself  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  attacked.  From  Monea,  Rory  went  on 
to  Tully  Castle,  which  lay  ten  miles  distant  on  the  shores 
of  Lough  Erne.  This  Castle,  the  property  of  Sir  George 
Hume,  was  reached  late  in  the  evening,  and  that  night 
Rory  and  his  followers  camped  out  in  the  fields  close  to 
the  Castle  walls.  On  the  following  morning  Rory  ap- 
proached the  Castle,  and,  in  a  friendly  manner,  desired 
a  parley  with  the  Constable.  This  was  agreed  to,  and 
Rory  himself  and  Brian  Magrath  on  the  one  side,  and 
Lady  Hume  and  John  Grier  on  the  other,  debated  terms. 
Sir  George  was  away.  It  was  finally  agreed  to  surrender 
the  Castle,  with  all  the  arms,  ammunition  and  valuables 
in  it,  on  condition  that  all  the  inmates  should  be  allowed 
to  go  to  Enniskillen,  or  to  Monea  (which  was  half-way 
between  the  two  places).  To  the  terms  of  this  agreement, 
which  were  made  in  writing  and  signed,  Rory  added  his 
own  solemn  oath.1  The  Castle  was  then  surrendered  and 
Rory  took  possession,  after  taking  the  precaution  of  having 
all  the  arms  within  the  place  handed  out  over  the  wall 
before  he  ventured  inside. 

The  moment  the  Irish  were  inside  they  stripped  to  the 
skin  every  living  being  within  the  walls  (with  the  solitary 
exception  of  Lady  Hume).  All  the  men  were  then  bound 
hand  and  foot  and,  together  with  the  women  and 
children,  were  thrown  naked  into  the  courtyard  of  the 
Castle,  where  they  lay  all  night  in  the  bitter  cold.  On 
the  following  morning,  being  Christmas  Day,  all  were 
butchered  in  cold  blood,  to  the  number  of  fifteen  men 
and  sixty  women  and  children.*  The  only  exceptions 
were  Lady  Hume,  Patrick  Hume,  Alexander  Hume  and 
John  Grier,  who  had  been  taken  on  the  previous  evening 
to  a  neighbouring  barn  belonging  to  a  man  named  Good- 
fellow.  Those  within  the  barn  were  mercifully  unable 
to  see  the  horrible  doings  within  the  Castle  walls,  but 
they  saw  one  woman  run  naked  out  of  the  Castle  gates, 
only  to  have  two  pikes  thrust  into  her  by  a  couple  of 
watchers  outside  named  Thomas  McRory  and  Philip 
O'Muldoon.' 

In   this   way   did   Rory   Maguire   celebrate   Christmas 

1  Dep.  of  Patrick  Hume. 

2  Dep.  of  Richard  Bourke,  Bachelor  of  Divinity,  Brian  Maguire  and 
Thomas  Winslow. 

3  Dep.  of  Richard  Fawcett. 


1641]  MASSACRE  AT  TULLY  197 

in  Co.  Fermanagh  in  the  year  1641.  Among  the  men 
butchered  at  Tully  were  Francis  Trotter,  Thomas  Trotter, 
Alexander  Sheringfield,  Alexander  Bell,  George  Chearnside, 
Robert  Black,  James  Barrie,  Thomas  Anderson,  James 
Anderson,  David  Anderson,  John  Brodie  and  Robert 
Lawdon.  The  names  of  the  women  and  children  have  not 
been  handed  down. 

As  it  is  the  fashion,  with  a  certain  class  of  writers,  in 
dealing  with  the  1641  rising,  to  discount  the  value  of  any 
evidence  given  by  British  witnesses,  the  following  short 
account  of  the  occurrence  furnished  by  Rory's  uncle, 
Brian  Maguire,  has  a  special  interest.  Brian  says : 
"  About  Christmas  1641  the  said  Rory,  having  given 
quarter  to  many  of  the  British  who  held  the  Castle  of 
Tully,  after  quarter  was  given,  he  the  said  Rory  and  his 
followers  first  stripped  and  then  murdered  man,  woman  and 
child  of  them  that  came  out  of  the  Castle  upon  quarter."  * 

It  is  satisfactory  to  be  able  to  add  that  the  perpetrators 
of  this  horrible  outrage  were  intercepted  on  their  way 
back  by  a  combined  party,  specially  sent  out  for  the 
purpose,  from  Monea  and  Enniskillen.  This  party  was 
too  late  to  save  Tully,  which  was  evidently  its  object, 
but  it  gave  Rory  and  his  butchers  a  severe  beating,  captured 
four  colours,  and  accounted  for  one  of  the  McMahons, 
one  of  the  Maguires,  and  200  others  of  those  who  had 
been  active  participators  in  the  murders.8  Of  the  ultimate 
fate  of  Monea  Castle  nothing  is  known,  but  the  strong 
probability  is  that,  after  the  Tully  affair,  those  within 
the  walls  were  withdrawn  to  Enniskillen. 

The  massacres  at  Lisgool  and  Tully  were  beyond  doubt 
acts  of  private  revenge  on  the  part  of  Rory  Maguire  for 
the  capture  of  Donough  Maguire's  Castle  and  the  killing 
of  the  garrison.  Sir  Phelim,  however,  who  had  parted 
company  with  Rory  after  Augher,  had  grievances  of  his 
own  to  avenge,  in  the  first  instance  for  his  defeat  at  Augher, 
and  secondly  for  the  almost  simultaneous  defeat  of  his 
troops  before  Drogheda  on  December  20.  As  to  the 
exact  instructions  which  Sir  Phelim  may  have  given  in 
the  matter  of  the  outrages  which  followed  we  know  nothing. 
All  that  is  certain  is  that,  shortly  after  the  two  defeats 
above  mentioned,  and  almost  at  the  same  time  as  the 
massacres  at  Lisgool  and  Tully,  Sir  Phelim's  own  parish 

i  Dep.  of  Brian  Maguire.  •  "  Relation  "  of  Audley  Mervyn. 


198  CHRISTMAS   1641   IN   ULSTER         [CHAP,  xn 

at  Kinard  was  the  scene  of  some  very  cold-blooded  and 
barbarous  murders.  "  When  the  rebels  came  from  the 
siege  of  Augher,  they,  like  so  many  bears  robbed  of  their 
cubs,  killed  every  Scot  they  met  with,"  the  Reverend 
John  Kerdiff  swore  in  his  evidence.1  The  organisers  of, 
and  the  chief  actors  in,  these  murders  were  Sir  Phelim's 
foster-brothers,  the  O'Hughs.  How  they  executed  their 
horrible  work  is  not  known,  except  in  the  case  of  the 
Bos  wells.  All  that  we  have  on  record  are  the  names  of 
the  victims,  or  at  all  events  of  some  of  them.  Among  these 
were  Humphrey  Potter  and  his  wife  ;  John  Wynn  and  his 
wife  ;  John  Leatherborrow  and  his  son  ;  a  glazier  (name 
not  given)  and  his  wife,  mother-in-law  and  two  children  ; 
Mrs.  Babington  and  her  daughter  ;  a  man  named  Higgs, 
and  William  Bos  well  with  his  wife  and  infant  child.8 
The  three  last  named  had  come  over  to  Kinard  a  twelve- 
month earlier  at  the  express  invitation  of  Sir  Phelim. 
Mrs.  Boswell  had  acted  as  nurse  to  a  child  of  his  in  London, 
and  was  bound  by  strong  ties  to  his  family.  On  Christmas 
Day,  however,  she  and  her  husband  and  child  were  killed 
at  their  own  house  in  Kinard.  Mrs.  Boswell  had  on  her 
no  less  than  fourteen  wounds  from  skeans.  Her  baby 
was  thrust  through  with  a  skean  and  thrown  on  to  the 
turf- stack.1  Sir  Phelim's  grief  on  hearing  the  news  has 
already  been  described.  He  sent  William  Skelton,  who 
was  a  prisoner  in  Kinard  house,  out  to  bury  the  bodies, 
and  he  also  went  through  the  pretence  of  deposing  a 
priest  named  Oghie,  who  was  in  command  at  Kinard 
at  the  time.  In  addition  to  these  domestic -murders  at 
Kinard  we  learn  from  the  deposition  of  Catherine  Cook, 
the  wife  of  a  local  carpenter,  that  about  the  same  date, 
i.e.  on  December  20,  a  large  batch  of  prisoners  was  sent 
from  either  Loughgall  or  Kilmore  to  Portadown  Bridge 
and  there  drowned  in  the  Bann.4  This,  so  far  as  can  be 
ascertained,  was  the  second  batch  sent  to  Portadown,  the 
first  having  been  despatched  at  the  beginning  of  November.5 
The  striking  difference  between  these  late  December 
massacres  and  those  which  had  taken  place  in  the  same 
parishes  a  month  earlier  was  that,  whereas  in  November  the 
victims  had  been  principally  men,  in  December  they 

1  Dep.  of  Mr.  John  Kerdiff,  Rector  of  Diserteragh  in  the  barony  of 
Dungannon. 

1  Dep.  of  Michael  Harrison.  *  Dep.  of  Catherine  Cook. 

3  Dep.  of  William  Skelton.  •  Dep.  of  Elizabeth  Price. 


1641]       REASONS  FOR  RENEWED   MASSACRES       199 

were  almost  all  women  and  children.  The  fact  is  interest- 
ing as  a  barometer  of  the  public  temper.  It  shows  how 
the  instinct  of  self-preservation,  which  at  first  prompted 
the  killing  of  the  able-bodied  men,  lest  they  should  find 
means  of  joining  the  fighting  forces  of  the  British  in  the 
field,  was  quickly  followed  by  a  blood-thirst,  which  made 
no  distinction  between  men,  women  and  children.  Mr. 
George  Creichton  furnishes  us  with  an  interesting  state- 
ment on  the  subject  of  the  curious  workings  of  the  native 
mind,  which  were  responsible  for  the  steadily  ascending 
scale  of  massacre  as  the  rebellion  progressed.  "  The 
Irish  said  they  saw  utter  destruction  at  hand,  for  they 
had  carried  so  great  bitterness  for  so  long  in  their  hearts, 
and  had  now  so  suddenly  broken  out  against  them  that 
had  brought  them  up,  kept  them  in  their  houses  like  their 
own  children,  and  made  no  difference  between  them  and 
their  English  friends  and  kindred.  By  all  which  the 
English  had  so  well  deserved  of  them,  and  they  had 
requited  them  so  evilly,  that  the  English  would  never 
trust  them  hereafter ;  so  that  now  it  remained  that 
either  they  must  destroy  the  English  or  the  English  must 
destroy  them." l  The  same  witness  said  that  the  com- 
monly expressed  opinion  among  the  Irish  was  that  Rory 
Maguire  had  undone  them  all  by  his  precipitate  massacres, 
which  involved  them  all  so  deeply  that  there  was  no  going 
back  and  no  hope  of  pardon. 

It  is  a  curious  fact,  for  which  it  is  difficult  to  find  an 
explanation,  that  festival  days  seem  to  have  been  specially 
selected  for  many  of  the  worst  massacres.  Christmas 
Day,  New  Year's  Day,  Easter  and  May-day  were  all 
celebrated  by  massacres  of  British  prisoners.  The  massacre 
which  occurred  at  the  New  Year  in  Monaghan  is  par- 
ticularly interesting  because  of  the  prominent  part  taken 
in  it  by  the  local  priests.  Up  to  this  date  the  priests — 
with  one  or  two  distressing  exceptions — appear  mainly 
as  restraining  influences,  succouring  the  British  and 
rebuking  the  excesses  of  such  ruffians  as  Manus  O'Cahan, 
Toole  McCann  and  even  Sir  Phelim  himself.  We  are  told 
that  one  Roman  Catholic  priest,  named  Dr.  Daly,  preached 
so  vehemently  against  the  prevailing  massacres  that  in  the 
end  he  had  to  fly  for  his  life.8  From  the  beginning  of  the 

1  Examination  of  the  Rev.  George  Creichton. 
«  Dep.  of  Dr.  Robert  Maxwell. 


200  CHRISTMAS   1641   IN  ULSTER         [CHAP,  xii 

New  Year,  however,  the  priests  show  up  in   a  different 
light. 

On  New  Year's  Day  Emer  McLoughlin  McMahon,  Vicar- 
General  of  Clogher,  and  afterwards  titular  Bishop  of 
Clogher  and  General  of  the  Irish  Forces  in  Ulster,  came 
to  Ballinrosse,  accompanied  by  a  man  named  Patrick 
McEdmund  McMahon  and  celebrated  the  advent  of  the 
New  Year  by  drowning  seventeen  men,  women  and  chil- 
dren, some  of  whom  were  English  and  some  Scots.1  On 
the  following  day  Patrick  McEdmund  wrent  on  to  Lord 
Essex's  house  at  Carrickmacross,  being  joined  on  the  way 
by  a  Donoughmoyne  priest  named  Philip  O'Duffy  and 
by  another  man  named  Owen  O'Murphy.  The  Vicar- 
General  himself  did  not  accompany  them,  but  the  rumour 
was  that  all  that  was  done  was  by  his  orders,*  his  alleged 
reason  for  his  change  of  mood  being  that,  during  or  after 
the  defeat  of  the  Irish  at  Ardee,  some  priests  had  been 
killed.  In  Carrickmacross  House  a  large  party  of  British 
had  been  kept  prisoners  since  October  23.  These  were 
now  doomed  to  die.  Those  of  better  social  position 
were  accorded  the  privilege  of  being  hanged,  such  as 
Mr.  William  Williams,  Lord  Essex's  seneschal,  Mr.  Gabriel 
Williams,  the  brother  of  the  last-named,  Mr.  Ishell  Jones, 
his  brother-in-law,  Mr.  Hollis,  the  manager  of  Mrs.  Usher's 
estate  in  Farney,  Mr.  Morris,  clerk  to  Sir  Henry  Spottis- 
wood,  John  Jackson,  a  tailor  in  Carrickmacross,  Thomas 
Aldersley,  a  provision  merchant  in  the  same  place,  and 
Thomas  Geddes.1  The  rest,  being  of  inferior  rank,  were 
hacked  to  death  in  the  usual  way  with  swords  and  skeans, 
and  their  bodies  flung  outside  into  ditches.  The  names 
of  these  unfortunate  people  were  Thomas  Clark,  Thomas 
Osborne,  a  shepherd,  John  Morris,  Philip  Farley,  a  farmer, 
Miles  Powley,  William  Wood,  Thomas  Trawn,  a  Scotch 
pedlar,  George  Green,  Ralph  Seacombe,  John  Hughes,  a 
labourer,  Edward  Bell,  Edward  Crutchley,  Robert  Ray, 
Richard  Gates,  Richard  Taylor,  a  shepherd,  John  Walmisley, 
Richard  Musgrave,  William  Musgrave,  Henry  Wylie, 
George  Harrison  and  Thomas  Young.4  The  only  men 
saved  were  Anthony  Atkinson,  Mr.  Branthwaite's  servant, 
who  was  put  into  Redmond  Burke's  house,  where  Mr. 

1  Dep.  of  Elizabeth  Clarke.  *  Dep.  of  Mr.  Robert  Branthwaite. 

3  Dep.  of  Margaret  Kelly. 

4  Dep.  of  Anthony  Atkinson  and  Rev.  Robert  Boyle. 


1641]  MASSACRE  AT  CARRICKMACROSS  201 

Branthwaite  himself  had  been  since  October  23,  and 
Mr.  Robert  Boyle,  the  Minister  of  Carrickmacross.  The 
women  were  not  killed,  but  were  stripped  and  turned  out 
into  the  January  cold  to  live  or  die  as  chance  might 
dictate.  It  is  not  probable  that  many  of  them  survived 
both  the  cold  and  the  bands  of  murderers  that  were  every- 
where abroad.  Mrs.  Montgomery,  the  wife  of  the  minister 
of  Donoughmoyne,  deposed  that  108  of  the  British  in 
Carrickmacross — including  many  women  and  children — 
lost  their  lives  between  the  New  Year  and  May  1642. l 
There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  New  Year  murders  at 
Carrickmacross,  all  of  which,  we  are  told,  were  carried  out 
under  the  personal  superintendence  of  Owen  O'Murphy, 
were  actuated  not  only  by  desire  to  avenge  the  defeat  at 
Ardee,  but  also  from  genuine  fear  lest  the  male  prisoners 
might  break  out  and  join  the  victorious  British  forces. 
Sir  Simon  Harcourt  had  reached  Ireland  with  1,400  men 
(the  first  troops  sent  over  since  the  rising)  on  the  last 
day  of  December,  and  the  news  of  his  arrival  seems  to 
have  filled  the  Irish  with  wild  fears. 

1  Dep.  of  Mrs.  Montgomery. 


CHAPTER   XIII 

PROGRESS   OF  THE   REBELLION   IN   ANTRIM 

EVER  since  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century  the 
counties  of  Down  and  Antrim  had  been  in  a  sense  apart 
from  the  rest  of  Ulster.  These  two  counties  had  been 
planted  eight  or  nine  years  earlier  than  the  six  escheated 
counties,  more  thoroughly,  and  with  colonists  who  were 
almost  exclusively  lowland  Scots.  By  virtue  of  the  defence- 
corps  so  promptly  organised  by  the  Antrim  and  Down 
colonists  at  the  outbreak  of  the  rising,  there  had  been  few 
instances,  in  either  county,  of  private  houses  or  Castles  cap- 
tured by  the  Irish  and  filled  with  British  prisoners  destined 
to  be  murdered  later  on.  On  the  other  hand,  the  very 
fact  of  forming,  at  a  few  hours'  notice,  a  defence-corps 
composed  of  every  able-bodied  man,  of  necessity  meant  that 
the  women,  children,  and  old  men  had  to  be  left  behind 
at  the  mercy  of  loose  bands  of  cut-throats.  We  know 
that,  between  the  dates  of  the  first  and  second  attacks  on 
Lisburn,  Lord  Conway's  tenants — on  returning  to  their 
houses — found  them  stripped  and  spoiled.  What  was  the 
fate  of  their  women  and  children  ?  This  is  a  point  which 
must  for  ever  remain  in  obscurity.  It  is  certain  that  during 
the  concentration  of  the  Tyrone,  as  well  as  of  the  Antrim 
men,  the  women  and  children  in  many  cases  got  lost  sight 
of  for  several  weeks.  Many  were  no  doubt  killed,  and 
many  others  found  shelter  in  the  houses  of  friendly  Irish, 
such  as  Daniel  O'Hagan.  The  author  of  Warr  of  Ireland 
tells  us  that,  after  Colonel  Clotworthy  had  captured  Mount- 
joy,  many  British  women  and  children  found  their  way 
there,  who  had  been  given  up  for  lost  by  their  male  rela- 
tions. He  draws  attention  to  the  important  fact  that  the 
massacre  of  Captain  Upton's  Irish  tenants  at  Temple- 
patrick,  in  January  1642  was  an  act  of  revenge,  organised 
by  some  Tullahogue  men,  whose  women  and  children  had 
202 


1642]  THE  PORTNA  MASSACRE  208 

been  murdered  while  they  were  concentrating  for  defence. 
As  to  the  extent  of  such  murders,  there  are  no  reliable 
data,  nor  can  there  be  any  profit  in  hazarding  wild  con- 
jectures or  in  quoting  extravagant  estimates.  It  will  serve 
better  to  deal  only  with  occurrences  as  to  which  there  is 
ample  and  reliable  evidence. 

Reference  has  already  been  made  to  the  regiment  which 
Mr.  Archibald  Stewart,  the  Earl  of  Antrim's  agent,  raised 
from  the  Bally mena  district,  and  which  was  mainly  composed 
of  Antrim's  tenants.  Stewart,  though  a  worthy  and  well- 
meaning  man,  was  clearly  of  a  simple  and  credulous  nature, 
for  he  was  rash  enough  to  include  in  his  regiment  not  only 
a  company  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Highlanders  from  the 
Route  and  Glynns,  under  the  command  of  James  McColl- 
kittagh  McDonnell,  but  even  a  company  of  Irish  under 
Tirlough  Oge  McCahan.  Both  Chichester  and  Montgomery 
protested  very  strongly  against  the  risky  course  which 
Stewart  was  bent  on,  but  without  succeeding  in  shaking 
his  resolution.  He  was  now  to  pay  the  penalty  of  his 
folly. 

On    January    2    Stewart's    regiment   was    brought    to 
Portna  on  the  Bann  for  the  relief  of  Mr.  George  Canning, 
who  was  being  besieged  by  Manus  O'Cahan  and  500  Irish 
in  Artagarvey  House  on  the  Coleraine  side  of  the  Bann. 
The  regiment  encamped  at  Portna,  on  the  Antrim  side. 
When  O'Cahan's  and  McDonnell's  companies  learnt  the 
nature  of  the  service  which  was  required  of   them  they 
refused  to  take  part  in  it,  and  were  accordingly  left  behind 
at  Portna.     Captain  Peeble's  and  Captain  Glover's  com- 
panies were  also  left  behind,  as  the  entire  strength  of  the 
regiment  was  not  considered  necessary  for  the  service 
required.     The  remainder  of  the  regiment  crossed  the  river. 
As  soon  as  they  were  safely  across,  Henry  and  Art  O'Hagan 
of  Magherasharlin  in  Co.  Antrim  crossed  the  river  and 
informed  Manus  O'Cahan  of  the  state  of  affairs  at  the 
camp,  and  of  the  excellent  opportunity  which  presented 
itself  for  exterminating  the   two   companies   which   had 
been  left   at   Portna.      Manus  was  quick  to  realise  that 
the  opportunity  was  indeed  unique,   and,   leaving  men 
enough  at  Artagarvey  to  occupy  the  attention  of  Mr.  James 
Stewart,  who  was  at  the  moment  in  command  of  the 
regiment,  he  crossed  over  with  the  remainder  to  the  Antrim 
side.     Once  across,  no  time  was  lost  in  mapping  out  a 


204    PROGRESS  OF  REBELLION  IN  ANTRIM  [CHAP,  xm 

programme  with  James  McCollkittagh's  company,  and  with 
the  company  of  Tirlough  Oge  O'Cahan  (brother  to  Manus).1 

In  the  small  hours  of  January  3,  two  hours  before 
daylight,  the  two  treacherous  companies  left  the  camp  at 
Portna,  but  shortly  afterwards  returned  followed  by  their 
Irish  allies.  Captain  Glover's  and  Captain  Peeble's  com- 
panies were  asleep,  and  the  sentries,  seeing  their  comrades 
approaching,  suspected  nothing  until  a  sudden  volley  re- 
vealed the  treachery.  It  was  then  too  late  to  arm,  and 
sixty  were  killed,  either  in  their  beds  or  struggling  to  rise.8 
A  few  escaped  hi  the  darkness  and  confusion.  The  rebels 
possessed  themselves  of  the  arms  and  ammunition  of  the 
murdered  men,  and  then  burned  a  village  known  as  the 
Cross,  killing  every  British  man,  woman  or  child  that 
they  could  find,  after  which  they  passed  on  to  Balleymoney, 
where  they  did  the  like.'  A  cooper  named  James 
McDonnell,  belonging  to  Ballymena,  who  was  taken 
prisoner  and  was  marched  along  with  the  rebels,  was 
released  next  day  by  order  of  Donald  Gorm  McDonnell  of 
Killoquin.  This  man  swore  in  his  deposition  that,  on  his 
way  home,  he  saw  the  corpses  of  at  least  100  men,  women 
and  children  who  had  been  murdered  the  day  before.4 

The  Rev.  George  Hill,  who,  as  biographer  of  the  McDon- 
nells, has  to  gild  all  the  deeds  of  that  family,  makes  an 
attempt  to  convert  this  atrocious  act  of  treachery  and 
cold-blooded  murder  into  a  heroic  feat  of  arms.  The 
account  of  the  affair  which  he  gives  in  his  McDonnells  of 
Antrim  is  worthy  of  study  as  an  illustration  of  the  way 
in  which  an  enthusiastic  writer,  by  an  adroit  distortion 
of  facts,  can  transform  even  the  most  infamous  acts  into 
deeds  of  glory.  "  McDonnell,"  he  writes,  "  now  felt  that 
he  had  only  one  course  left,  to  clear  the  passage  across  the 
river  if  possible  by  a  desperate  assault.  He  determined, 
therefore,  with  his  two  companies  to  spring  upon  the  six 
[OT'CJ  companies  of  the  enemy ;  but  he  felt,  at  the  same  time, 
how  hopeless  must  be  the  attack  unless  it  could  be  made 
under  circumstances  favourable  to  his  numerically  insig- 
nificant force.  After  carefully  calculating  the  chances,  he 
attacked  Stewart  early  in  the  morning  of  January  2, 
and  when  daylight  had  appeared  he  had  scattered  the 

1  Dep.  of  Fergus  Fullerton. 

2  Dep.  of  Gilduffe  O'Cahan  (the  father  of  Manus  and  Tirlough  Oge). 

3  Dep.  of  Allan  Carte  and  Robert  Hamill. 
*  Dep.  of  James  McDonnell. 


1642]        ATTACK  ON  BALLYMONEY  HOUSE  205 

enemy  in  all  directions,  leaving  several  dead  in  their 
encampment  and  some  even  in  their  beds."  l 

There  is  suggestio  falsi  in  every  word  of  this  laboured 
apology  for  a  very  dastardly  deed,  but  there  is  more  than 
suggestio  falsi  in  some  of  the  statements  made  ;  there  is 
deliberate  misrepresentation  ;  for  there  were  not  six  com- 
panies attacked,  but  two,  the  other  four  under  Stewart 
being  away  at  Artagarvey  House,  so  that  even  Hill's  plea 
that  the  numerical  inferiority  of  the  McDonnells  and  of  the 
Irish  forced  them  to  the  unpleasant  necessity  of  murdering 
their  comrades  in  their  beds,  falls  to  the  ground. 

From  Ballymoney,  the  rebels  marched  on  under  the 
command  of  James  McCollkittagh  and  the  three  O'Cahans 
(Cormack  Reagh  O'Cahan  had  by  this  time  joined  his  two 
brothers)  to  Ballintoy  House,  the  property  of  Mr.  Archibald 
Stewart.  The  garrison  and  inmates  of  this  house  were 
under  the  joint  command  of  Mr.  Robert  Fullerton  and 
Mr.  Archibald  Boyd.  They  were  summoned  to  surrender 
under  promise  of  quarter  and  safe  conduct  to  Carrickfergus 
or  Coleraine,  but  these  overtures  were  very  wisely  declined. 
Two  attacks  were  then  made  upon  the  house,  during  one 
of  which  an  improvised  battering-ram  was  used  upon  the 
main  entrance  ;  but  both  attacks  were  beaten  off  and  six 
of  the  assailants  were  killed.  Discouraged  by  this  repulse, 
the  rebels  then  abandoned  the  siege  and  passed  on  west- 
ward along  the  coast  to  Dunseverick,  where  they  killed 
Alastair  McNeil's  daughter,  Guy  Cochrane's  son  and 
Robert  McCurdie's  son.  On  learning  of  these  murders,  a 
man  named  John  Spence  shut  himself  up  in  his  house  with 
his  sword  drawn  and  a  determination  to  fight  to  the  last. 
He  was,  however,  eventually  persuaded  by  a  neighbour  of 
his  named  Connacher  O'Cahan  to  give  up  his  sword  upon 
promise  of  life  and  liberty.  No  sooner  had  he  done  so 
than  he  was  killed,  together  with  his  wife  and  mother.1 

The  rebel  force  slept  at  Dunseverick  and  the  following 
day  moved  on  to  Dunluce,  where  they  offered  Captain 
Digby  safe  conduct  to  Coleraine  if  he  would  yield  the 
Castle.  This  proposal  he  stoutly  declined,  whereupon  they 
burned  the  town  and  killed  a  man  named  Gait,  whom  by 
some  mischance  they  found  outside  the  Castle  walls.  On  the 
following  day  they  went  on  to  Oldstone  Castle  near  Clough, 

*  Hill's  McDonnells  of  Antrim,  p.  63. 

*  Dep.  of  David  Grey  and  Donnell  Spence. 


206   PROGRESS  OF  REBELLION  IN  ANTRIM  [CHAP,  xin 

being  joined  on  the  march  by  another  party  of  Irish  under 
Art  Oge  O'Neil.  The  Castle  at  Oldstone  was  full  of  refugees, 
and  to  these  and  to  the  garrison  James  McCollkittagh  made 
the  usual  promise  of  safe  conduct  to  Carrickfergus  if  the 
Castle  were  surrendered.  The  Castle  was  under  the  com- 
mand of  Walter  Kennedy,  a  gentleman  to  whom  we  learn 
that  the  Earl  of  Antrim  owed  fl^OO.1  Either  through 
folly  or  owing  to  lack  of  provisions,  Kennedy  accepted  the 
terms  offered  and  opened  the  Castle  gates.  Several  women 
with  babies  in  their  arms  were  at  once  killed  in  the  court- 
yard, the  garrison  were  made  prisoners,  and  a  party  of 
sixty  women,  children  and  old  men  were  sent  off  under 
escort  on  the  road  to  Carrickfergus,  as  had  been  agreed  in 
the  terms  of  surrender.  Before  they  had  gone  two  miles 
on  their  way  the  entire  party  were  murdered  at  the  Glen- 
ravel  Water  by  a  party  of  natives  led  by  a  man  named 
Toole  McHugh  O'Hara.' 

An  apologetic  explanation  of  this  brutal  act  of  treachery 
was  afterwards  given  by  James  McCollkittagh  in  a  letter 
which  he  wrote  to  Mr.  Archibald  Stewart.'  "  Oldstone," 
he  wrote,  "  was  rendered  unto  me,  and  all  they  within 
had  good  quarter,  only  the  Clandeboye  soldiers  and  the 
two  regiments  from  beyond  the  Bann  [O'Hagans  and 
O'Cahans]  were  a  little  greedy  for  pillaging,  which  could 
not  be  helped.  As  for  the  killing,  none  of  my  soldiers 
[the  McDonnells]  dare  do  it,  but  the  common  people  that 
are  not  under  rule  do  it  in  spite  of  our  teeth.  But  as  for 
your  people  they  killed  of  women,  children  and  old  people 
about  three  score."  * 

1  Hill's  McDonnells  of  Antrim,  Appendix  XIX. 

»  Dep.  of  John  Blair. 

3  Mr.  Hill,  in  his  McDonnells  of  Antrim,  makes  some  curious  mistakes 
in  connection  with  all  these  movements.  He  describes  Alastair  McColl- 
kittagh McDonnell  as  having  been  in  command  at  Portna  and  in  the  sub- 
sequent operations  which  terminated  in  the  surrender  of  Oldstone.  The 
real  commander  was  James  McCollkittagh,  Alastair's  brother.  This  is 
made  quite  clear  by  the  deposition  of  Fergus  Fullerton.  This  initial 
mistake  has  evidently  puzzled  Mr.  Hill  as  to  the  identity  of  the  James 
McDonnell  who  wrote  the  letter  about  Oldstone  to  Stewart.  He  finally 
tells  us  that  this  was  Sir  James  McDonnell,  the  son  of  Sir  Alexander  of  Kil- 
conway.  This  is  another  mistake.  The  writer  was  James  McCollkittagh 
McDonnell  as  indeed  is  made  evident  by  the  text  of  the  letter  itself.  "  Old- 
stone  was  rendered  unto  me,"  he  writes.  If  further  proof  were  wanted  it 
is  to  be  found  in  the  deposition  of  Donald  Gorm,  who  states  that  he  visited 
James  McCollkittagh  McDonnell  at  Oldstone  Castle,  which  he  had  made 
his  residence  "  after  it  had  been  surrendered  to  him."  (See  Hill,  p.  70.) 

*  Hickson's  Ireland  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,  Appendix. 


1642]  MASSACRE  AT  OLDSTONE  207 

This  letter  makes  it  quite  clear  that  the  women  killed 
in  the  courtyard  were  killed  by  camp-followers.  Roger 
Pike,  in  his  "  Narrative,"  tells  us  that  both  the  Irish  and 
the  English  armies  were  invariably  followed  by  a  crowd  of 
these  beasts  of  prey,  known  as  Pillagers,  "  who  cut  off  the 
wounded  and  spared  neither  woman  nor  child,  either  of 
the  British  or  of  their  own  race."  1  The  aim  of  these 
creatures  was  simply  the  clothes  and  other  accoutrements 
of  those  they  murdered. 

In  attempting  to  understand  the  final  part  of  McDonnell's 
letter,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  his  object,  throughout, 
is  to  vindicate  the  honour  of  his  Highlanders,  and  his  letter 
maintains  that  these  did  none  of  the  killing  at  the  Castle. 
He  goes  on  to  say  that  the  killing  of  the  sixty  women, 
children  and  old  men  was  the  work  of  Stewart's  "  own 
people,"  which  can  only  refer  to  Tirlough  O'Cahan's  com- 
pany, which  had  originally  belonged  to  Stewart's  regiment. 

After  the  Portna  massacre,  the  remnant  of  Stewart's 
regiment  withdrew  to  Coleraine,  while  James  McCollkittagh 
and  his  heterogeneous  following  returned  to  Ballymoney, 
which,  for  the  time  being,  he  constituted  his  headquarters. 
Later  on,  when  pressing  the  siege  of  Coleraine,  he  advanced 
his  headquarters  to  within  a  mile  or  two  of  that  town. 

The  New  Year's  epidemic  of  murder  in  Co.  Antrim  was 
not  confined  to  the  bands  that  followed  McCollkittagh. 
Many  murders  were  committed  in  the  Ballycastle  district, 
the  majority  of  which  were  attributed  to  the  Dowager 
Countess  of  Antrim.  This  lady,  who  had  formerly  been 
Alice  O'Neil,  daughter  of  the  Earl  of  Tyrone,  was  accused 
of  seizing  the  occasion  to  murder  all  those  around  Bally- 
castle  to  whom  she  owed  money.  Among  these  were  Janet 
Speir  and  Thomas  Robinson,  John  Irvine  and  his  wife  and 
daughter,  John  Arthur  the  miller,  and  William  Griffin  ; 
three  old  women  (not  named)  were  also  seen  lying  dead 
outside  the  walls  of  the  Castle.  Lady  Antrim  was  after- 
wards tried  for  having  prompted  these  murders,  but  it 
was  not  found  possible  from  the  evidence  to  bring  the 
guilt  definitely  home  to  her. 

The  outrages  above  described  were  almost  immediately 
followed  by  two  retaliatory  massacres  from  the  other  side. 
About  Christmas  time  a  man  named  Barnet  Lindsay 
rode  into  the  town  of  Antrim  at  the  head  of  a  troop  of 

1  Roger  Pike's  "  Narrative,"  Ulster  Journal  of  Archaeology. 
15 


208  PROGRESS  OF  REBELLION  IN  ANTRIM  [CHAP,  xm 

forty  horse  from  the  neighbourhood  of  Tullahogue  (on 
the  other  side  of  Lough  Neagh).  Sir  John  Clotworthy, 
who  was  at  that  time  in  command  of  the  garrison  at  Antrim, 
was  naturally  glad  to  include  such  a  useful  body  of  men 
among  the  members  of  his  garrison.  The  author  of 
Warr  of  Ireland,  an  Irishman  named  Mulhollan  from 
Co.  Londonderry,  who  was  an  officer  in  Clotworthy 's 
force  when  Lindsay  and  his  men  rode  in,  tells  us  that  the 
whole  forty  of  them  "  were  so  burning  with  the  spirit  of 
vengeance  "  that  they  could  not  even  bear  to  hear  the  name 
of  an  Irishman  mentioned.1  It  seems  fairly  certain  that 
Lindsay  and  his  men  were  some  of  those  who  had  gone  with 
Sir  Thomas  Staples  from  east  Tyrone  to  Newtownstewart 
at  the  beginning  of  the  rebellion.  Many  of  these  men  had 
afterwards  been  persuaded  to  return  to  their  homes,  which 
they  found  empty  and  burnt.  All  were  under  the  impression 
that  their  wives  and  families  had  been  murdered  by  the 
Irish.  Mulhollan  tells  us  that  in  some  cases  the  missing 
ones  turned  up  afterwards,  but  there  can  be  little  doubt 
that  the  majority  were  murdered.  Anthony  Stratford, 
who,  as  a  prisoner  in  Charlemont  for  fourteen  months, 
had  every  opportunity  of  acquiring  first-hand  information, 
deposed  that  316  had  been  killed  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  Dungannon,  400  between  Dungannon  and  Charlemont, 
and  1,200  in  the  parish  of  Killyman  in  Co.  Tyrone.8  The 
latter  statement  he  had  from  Mr.  Birge,  the  minister 
of  the  parish,  who  was  himself  murdered  three  months 
after  making  the  statement.  Sir  Phelim  himself  made 
boast  that  he  had  exterminated  all  the  British  in  the 
Auchnacloy  promontory  of  the  county  known  as  the 
Large,  and  the  evidence  from  every  quarter  tends  to  con- 
firm this  statement.  As  in  other  districts  where  there  were 
exterminatory  massacres,  a  certain  proportion  of  the  hunted 
British  no  doubt  found  shelter  in  the  houses  of  the  friendly 
Irish,  but  even  in  these  sanctuaries  they  would  be  hidden 
from  the  eyes  of  their  despairing  relatives.  In  any  case, 
it  is  clear  that  Lindsay  and  his  companions  were  fully 
convinced  that  their  families  had  been  murdered.  Having 
no  longer  any  homes  or  family  ties,  these  men  once  more 
banded  together  and  rode  to  the  town  of  Antrim.  Before 

1  Warr  of  Ireland. 

1  The  capture  on  the  first  day  of  the  rising  of  Dungannon,  Mountjoy, 
Moneymore  and  Lissan  deprived  the  British  women  and  children  in  east 
Tyrone  of  any  so-called  refuge  to  which  they  could  flee. 


1642]          THE  TEMPLEPATRICK  MASSACRE  209 

they  had  been  there  a  fortnight  news  came  of  the  massacres 
at  Portna,  Ballymoney  and  Oldstone.  The  news  seems  to 
have  fanned  the  smouldering  vengeance  of  the  Tyrone  men 
into  an  active  flame.  Without  saying  a  word  to  any  other 
members  of  the  garrison,  they  rode  out  quietly  one  night  to 
Templepatrick  in  Ballymartin,  about  eight  miles  from 
Antrim,  where  they  massacred  a  number  of  Irish  men, 
women  and  children.  Mulhollan  says  eighty  were  killed, 
but  this  is  clearly  incorrect,  for  an  Irish  witness  named 
Donnell  McGillmartin,  whose  mother,  brother  and  father- 
in-law  were  among  the  victims,  swore  in  his  evidence  that 
the  number  of  those  killed  was  twenty-six.  Another 
Irish  witness  named  Anne  ny  Corry,  who  had  also  lost 
some  relatives  in  the  massacre,  gave  the  same  figure  of 
twenty-six  in  her  evidence,  so  that  it  is  reasonable  to 
accept  that  number  as  correct.  All  the  murdered  people 
were  tenants  of  Captain  Upton,  who  had  bought  Castle 
Norton,  and  with  it  the  Templepatrick  property,  from  Sir 
Humphrey  Norton  in  1616.  Captain  Upton,  who  is  de- 
scribed as  a  humane  and  moderate  man,  was  away  from 
home  at  the  time.  His  Lieutenant,  John  Garvin,  is  said 
to  have  helped  Lindsay  in  his  bloody  work.1 

About  the  same  time  a  similar  occurrence  took  place 
in  Magee  Island,*  but  whether  inspired  by  the  example 
of  the  Templepatrick  massacre,  or  whether  as  an  inde- 
pendent outburst  is  not  quite  clear.  It  would  seem  to 
have  been  organised  and  led  by  a  Ballycastle  man  named 
John  Irvine,  in  revenge  for  the  murder  by  Tirlough  O'Kelly 
of  his  two  daughters  Jane  and  Margaret  Irvine  a  week 
before.1  It  is  important  to  note  that  the  evidence  as  to 
the  act  of  provocation  which  resulted  in  this  massacre 
is  given  by  an  Irish  witness  named  Grany  O'Mullan. 

In  1653  a  Cromwellian  commission  was  appointed  to 
inquire  into  the  circumstances  of  the  Magee  Island  mas- 
sacre, and  the  evidence  of  many  of  the  Magees  and  others 
of  the  Irish  living  on  the  peninsula  was  taken.  The  de- 
positions of  these  witnesses  are  still  extant,  but  it  cannot 
be  claimed  that  they  leave  the  reader  very  much  wiser 
than  they  found  him.  All  that  they  make  clear  is  that  a 
certain  number  of  people  were  killed  on  Magee  Island  during 
the  first  week  in  January  1642,  which  in  those  days  was 

»  Dep   of  Donnell  McGillmartin.  •  See  Dep.  of  John  Marshall. 

3  Dep.  of  Grany  O'Mullan. 


210  PROGRESS  OF  REBELLION  IN  ANTRIM  [CHAP,  xm 

known  as  January  1641,  the  official  year  not  commencing 
till  April.  The  real  point  of  importance  established  by 
these  depositions  is  the  date,  which  all  agree  in  fixing  as 
the  first  week  in  January.  The  importance  of  the  date 
lies  in  the  fact  that  Irish  writers  have  striven  very  hard 
to  place  the  date  of  the  Magee  Island  massacre  early  in 
November  1641,  with  the  idea  of  representing  all  the 
earlier  massacres  of  British  as  acts  of  justifiable  retaliation 
for  this  massacre.  The  exact  contrary  was  the  truth.  Both 
the  Templepatrick  and  the  Magee  Island  murders  were  the 
acts  of  men  driven  frantic  by  the  unprovoked  butchery  of 
their  wives  and  children.  They  must  always  be  viewed  as 
horrible  acts,  but  by  so  much  less  horrible  than  the  acts 
which  provoked  them. 

The  Irish  version  of  the  Magee  Island  affair  calls  for 
a  passing  consideration,  if  for  no  other  reason  than  as 
an  illustration  of  the  methods  employed  in  compiling  the 
histories  upon  which  Irish  public  opinion  is  built  up.  In  the 
Politician's  Catechism,  an  anonymous  work  by  R.  S., 
published  in  1662,  we  find  the  following  passage  :  "About  the 
beginning  of  November  1641  the  English  and  Scotch  forces 
in  Knockfergus  [Carrickfergus]  murdered  in  one  night  all 
the  inhabitants  of  the  island  of  Magee,  in  number  about 
3,000  men,  women  and  children,  all  innocent  persons,  in  a 
time  when  none  of  the  Catholics  of  that  country  were  in 
arms  or  rebellion."  In  a  note  is  added  :  "  This  was  the 
first  massacre  committed  in  Ireland  on  either  side."  :  This 
statement  is  taken  up  and  reprinted  in  Hugh  O'Reilly's 
Genuine  History  of  Ireland,  published  in  1742,  and  has 
since  been  repeated  in  every  Irish  history  dealing  with  the 
1641  rising.  The  falseness  of  the  statement  is  conclusively 
proved  by  the  depositions  of  the  Irish  witnesses  them- 
selves, all  of  whom  were  in  agreement  as  to  the  date  being 
January  1642.  In  the  same  connection  the  following 
facts  are  of  interest.  In  the  "  Remonstrance  of  the 
Irish  Roman  Catholics,"  presented  to  the  King's  Com- 
missioners at  Trim  in  March  1642,  which  sets  out  all  the 
alleged  reasons  which  induced  the  Irish  to  take  up  arms, 
no  reference  is  made  to  any  massacre  in  Magee  Island. 
Again,  in  the  "  Humble  Apology  of  the  Irish  Roman 
Catholics  for  taking  up  Arms  "  there  is  no  mention  of  the 
Magee  Island  massacre,  nor  is  it  mentioned  in  the  second 

1  See  McSkimmin's  History  of  Carrickfergus,  p.  43. 


1642]  MAGEE   ISLAND   MASSACRE  211 

"  Remonstrance,"  which  followed  later.  This  would  seem 
to  make  it  perfectly  clear  that  the  claim  that  the  massacres 
of  British  were  in  retaliation  for  the  Magee  Island  massacre 
had  not  entered  into  the  heads  of  the  Irish  in  1642,  but 
was  a  growth  of  much  later  date. 

We  may  now  leave  the  question  of  dates  and  consider 
the  number  of  victims.  Irish  writers  claim  that  8,000 
were  killed.  This  figure  is  remarkable  in  view  of  the  fact 
that,  as  late  as  1819,  a  census  of  the  little  peninsula 
known  as  Magee  Island  only  returned  1,931  inhabitants, 
of  whom  a  large  proportion  were  British  Protestants.1 
In  1642  the  population  must  have  been  very  much  smaller, 
and  even  at  that  time  there  was  a  large  proportion  of 
Hills  and  other  British  among  the  residents.  The  Hills, 
in  fact,  sheltered  and  saved  many  of  the  Irish  during  the 
massacre. 

Perhaps  the  climax  of  absurdity  is  reached  in  the  at- 
tempt to  throw  the  blame  of  the  massacres  on  the  Scottish 
forces  at  Carrickfergus.  This  is  very  evidently  part  of 
the  general  scheme  for  manufacturing  an  excuse  for  the 
rising  out  of  the  Irish  fear  of  a  general  massacre  by  Scottish 
troops,  to  which  Mr.  Lecky  lends  such  a  respectful  ear. 
It  is  unfortunate  for  the  effect  of  the  argument  that  it  is 
on  record  that  no  Scottish  troops  reached  Ulster  till  April 
1642,  five  months  after  the  date  on  which  the  Irish  claim 
that  the  massacre  took  place.  The  treaty  for  the  sending 
over  of  the  Scottish  army  was  not  even  signed  till  January 
24,  1642.  The  sixth  article  of  the  treaty  provides  "  that 
a  man-of-war  or  some  merchant  ships  be  sent  from 
Bristol,  Westchester  or  Dublin  to  Lochryan  for  the  safe 
convoy  and  guard  of  the  troops.'?  •  This  disposes  very 
conclusively  of  the  fiction  as  to  the  massacre  having  been 
the  work  of  Scottish  troops.  The  depositions  of  the  Irish 
witnesses  point  to  three  men  as  having  been  especially 
conspicuous  in  prosecuting  the  work  of  revenge — John 
Irvine,  John  Marshall  and  a  man  named  Boyd. 

As  to  the  number  of  victims  there  is  no  reliable  guide, 
but  the  evidence  of  the  depositions  suggests  that  they 
were  few.  Mulhollan,  after  describing  the  Templepatrick 
massacre,  tells  us  that  "  a  like  number  were  killed  in 
Magee  Island."  We  have  had  clearly  established  by  two 

1  McSkimmin's  History  of  Carrickfergus. 

1  "  Treaty  with  Soots,"  Thurloe's  State  Paptrt. 


212  PROGRESS  OF  REBELLION  IN  ANTRIM  [CHAP,  xra 

Irish  witnesses,  close  relatives  of  the  victims,  that  the 
number  killed  at  Templepatrick  was  twenty-six,  which 
would  lead  one  to  suppose  that  about  the  same  number 
perished  at  Magee  Island.  Reid's  opinion  was  that  the 
actual  number  of  victims  was  thirty,  and  that  the  figure 
of  3,000  was  obtained  by  the  simple  process  of  adding  two 
ciphers. 

The  raids  at  Templepatrick  and  Magee  Island  furnish 
the  first  examples  of  retaliatory  massacres  on  the  part  of 
the  British  (the  raid  from  Keilagh,  already  described, 
was  subsequent).  By  comparison  with  the  wholesale 
massacres  of  British,  the  number  killed  was  insignificant ; 
but  we  may  rest  assured  that,  during  transmission  to 
central  Ulster,  they  would  grow  at  every  step,  till  they 
reached  dimensions  sufficiently  sensational  to  arouse  the 
spirit  of  revenge.  In  any  case,  it  is  an  unassailable  fact 
that  something  aroused  the  ferocity  of  the  Irish  after  the 
turn  of  the  year,  for  where  they  had  previously  been 
killing  the  British  prisoners  by  tens  they  now  began 
killing  them  by  hundreds.  Whether  it  was  the  retaliatory 
massacres  in  Antrim  that  were  responsible  for  this  change 
for  the  worse,  or  the  intervention  of  the  extreme  party 
among  the  priests,  or  Sir  Phelim's  ever-increasing  des- 
peration cannot  be  decided  with  any  certainty.  It  may 
well  have  been  a  combination  of  all  three.  It  may  well 
be,  again,  that  the  retaliatory  massacres  in  Antrim — small 
though  they  were  in  themselves — were  sufficient  to  en- 
courage the  idea  which  was  already  in  the  heads  of  the 
Irish  that  "  they  must  either  destroy  the  English  or  the 
English  must  destroy  them."  l  As  the  former  alternative 
seemed  the  one  to  be  preferred,  they  proceeded  to  put  it 
in  practice  as  far  as  their  opportunities  went. 

1  See  Examination  of  the  Rev.  George  Creichton,  p.  199. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

PROGRESS   OF  THE   REBELLION  DURING   FEBRUARY   1642 

AT  the  close  of  the  year  1641  Coleraine  was  the  most 
crowded  and  miserable  town  in  Ireland.  The  entire 
British  population  between  the  lower  Bann  and  the  Foyle 
had  gradually  made  its  way  north  to  this  one  little  town. 
Coleraine  in  1641  had  100  houses  surrounded  by  a  turf  ram- 
part. The  numbers  that  crowded  to  it  for  safety  required 
at  least  ten  times  this  accommodation.  The  season  was 
winter,  and  the  food  supplies  very  limited.  The  majority 
of  the  refugees  were  women,  children  and  old  men,  ill 
fitted  to  resist  long  exposure  to  the  cold  and  wet.  The 
sufferings  and  the  mortality  were  terrible.  One  of  the 
refugees,  an  English  clergyman,  wrote  to  a  friend  outside 
that  "  from  100  to  150  were  dying  weekly."  l  Two  thou- 
sand in  all  died  within  the  walls  during  the  first  four 
months  of  the  rebellion.  "  The  living — though  scarce 
able  to  do  it — laid  the  carcasses  of  these  dead  persons  in 
great  ranks  into  vast  and  wide  holes,  laying  them  so  close 
and  thick  as  if  they  had  packed  up  herrings  together."  ' 
The  able-bodied  men  from  among  the  refugees  were  formed 
— as  elsewhere — into  a  defence  corps  commanded  by 
Colonel  Edward  Rowley,  who  took  general  charge  of  all 
arrangements  for  the  protection  of  the  town. 

On  February  10,  1642,  Rowley,  at  the  head  of  400  men, 
marched  out  of  Coleraine  as  far  south  as  Garvagh,  where 
he  encountered  Cormac  O'Hagan  at  the  head  of  1,000 
O'Hagans,  O'Cahans  and  O'Mullans.  O'Hagan  divided 
his  force  into  four  parties,  who,  with  loud  yells,  simul- 
taneously attacked  Rowley  from  four  different  quarters. 
So  terrifying  were  the  yells  that  Rowley's  men  were 
seized  with  panic,  and,  without  waiting  for  the  encounter, 

1  See  Hickson's  Ireland  in  the  Seventeenth  Century,  vol.  i.  p.  202. 
*  Dep.  of  James  Redfern. 

213 


214    REBELLION  DURING  FEBRUARY  1642    [CHAP,  xiv 

turned  and  ran.  A  great  slaughter  ensued,  in  which  Colonel 
Rowley  and  the  majority  of  his  400  men  were  killed  ; 
only  a  few  stragglers  succeeded  in  reaching  Coleraine.1 

It  is  a  singular  fact  that,  of  the  only  three  defeats  in 
the  field  which  the  British  sustained  up  to  the  date  of 
Benburb,  two  were  inflicted  on  the  men  of  Coleraine. 
On  Good  Friday,2  that  is  to  say  about  six  weeks  after 
Rowley's  defeat  at  Garvagh,  Archibald  Stewart,  who  had 
subsequently  taken  over  command  of  the  garrison,  marched 
out  of  Coleraine  in  the  direction  of  Ballymoney,  presumably 
with  the  deliberate  intention  of  giving  battle  to  his  cousin 
and  one  time  friend  Alastair  McCollkittagh  McDonnell, 
a  gigantic  warrior  with  a  great  fighting  reputation,  who  had 
taken  over  command  of  the  rebel  force  at  Ballymoney  from 
his  brother  James.  Alastair  had  at  the  moment  under 
his  command  a  body  of  about  600  of  the  Route  Highlanders 
and  Irish,  all  of  whom  were  on  foot.  Archibald  Stewart 
had  about  the  same  number,  of  whom  a  considerable 
proportion  were  horsemen.  The  two  forces  met  at  Bun- 
dooragh  near  Ballymoney.3  McDonnell  skilfully  enticed 
Stewart's  horse  into  a  bog,  where  they  started  floundering, 
whereupon  McDonnell's  men  fired  one  volley  and  then, 
flinging  away  their  muskets,  charged  down  in  the  old 
Highland  fashion,  with  sword  in  one  hand  and  dirk  in 
the  other.  The  rout  of  Stewart's  men  was  complete,  and 
the  majority  were  killed. 

A  possible  explanation  of  the  poor  show  made  by  the 
Coleraine  men  on  each  of  the  above  occasions  may  be 
found  in  the  nerve-shattering  privations  to  which  they 
had  been  subjected  since  the  commencement  of  the 
rebellion.  Starved  and  sick  refugees  are  not  the  material 
from  which  a  commander  would  willingly  select  his 
army.  In  this  connection,  there  is  interest  in  the  fact 
that  the  British  force  defeated  at  Julianstown  was  also 
composed  of  nerve-shattered  refugees  suddenly  enlisted 
as  soldiers.  The  behaviour  of  the  men  at  the  three  above- 
named  fights  contrasts  remarkably  with  that  of  the  Lagan 
and  Lisburn  forces,  and  such  others  as  were  recruited  from 
local  colonists  who  had  gone  through  no  such  trying 
experiences. 

1  Warr  of  Ireland. 

*  Ibid.     Clogy  places  the  date  on  February  10,  but  he  is  clearly  in 
confusion  between  this  fight  and  that  at  Garvagh. 
8  Ibid.     Clogy  gives  Laney  as  the  name  of  the  battle-field. 


1642]    TIRLOUGH  OGE  REPULSED  FROM  ANTRIM   215 

The  Bundooragh  fight  was  considerably  ahead,  in  point 
of  date,  of  the  Garvagh  affair  and  the  events  that  followed 
on  it,  and  in  order  to  keep  events  in  their  proper  sequence 
it  becomes  necessary  to  return  to  the  beginning  of  February. 

On  the  same  day  as  the  Garvagh  fight,  i.e.  on  February  11, 
Tirlough  Oge,  at  the  head  of  an  army  of  4,000  men, 
appeared  with  hostile  demonstrations  outside  the  town  of 
Antrim.  For  two  days  Sir  Phelim's  brother  paraded  his 
army  up  and  down  before  the  town  with  much  noise  of 
drums  and  trumpets,  but  without  making  any  attempt 
to  attack.1  On  the  13th,  however,  encouraged  by  the  news 
of  Cormac  O'Hagan's  victory  at  Garvagh,  Tirlough  Oge 
resolved  to  imitate  the  victor's  tactics  on  that  occasion 
and  to  repeat,  if  possible,  his  success.  In  this  expectation 
he  divided  his  force  into  four  parties  of  1,000  each,  which 
attacked  the  town  simultaneously  from  different  quarters. 
Sir  John  Clotworthy  was  away  at  the  time,  and  the  garrison 
of  700  was  under  the  command  of  Major  Ellis  and  Captains 
Clotworthy,  Houston  and  Langford.  Under  the  direction 
of  these  four  officers,  a  defence  was  put  up  before  which 
Tirlough  Oge's  attack  failed  at  every  point.  His  army 
was  thrown  into  hopeless  confusion  and  took  refuge  in 
flight,  pursued  by  the  victorious  garrison.  The  remnants 
of  it  made  for  Oldstone,  and  finally  went  on  to  Larne, 
burning  everything  in  their  way  as  they  went.8 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Tirlough  Oge's  expedition 
against  Antrim  was  a  very  carefully  prepared  effort, 
the  main  object  of  which  was  the  capture  of  the  Lough 
Neagh  fleet  of  boats  which  had  their  anchorage  at  Antrim. 
The  disappointment  at  the  defeat  was  correspondingly 
great,  and  found  its  immediate  expression  in  a  series  of 
cold-blooded  massacres  in  Armagh  and  Tyrone,  of  which 
the  following  are  typical  examples  : 

Shortly  after  the  middle  of  February  Neil  Oge  O'Quin, 
accompanied  by  his  sons  and  a  man  named  James  McVeagh, 
came  to  Lissan,  of  which  place  he  was  Governor,  and  there 
deliberately  put  to  death  a  number  of  the  British  prisoners. 
The  exact  number  killed  on  this  occasion  is  uncertain, 
but  we  know  at  any  rate  of  the  death  of  the  following : 
John  Young,  James  Young,  John  Armstrong,  Andrew 
Carter  and  his  wife  and  two  children,  and  James  Steile 
with  his  wife  and  five  daughters.  James  Steile,  junior, 

i  Warr  of  Ireland.  *  IWd. 


216  REBELLION  DURING  FEBRUARY  1642    [CHAP,  xiv 

the  brother  of  the  five  girls  killed,  was  a  witness  of  the 
whole  transaction,  but  managed  to  escape.1  After  per- 
petrating these  cold-blooded  murders  at  Lissan,  O'Quin 
and  his  gang  then  passed  on  to  the  neighbouring  village 
of  Moneymore. 

There  is  a  strong  probability  that  Cormac  O'Hagan, 
the  Governor  of  Moneymore  and  the  victor  at  Garvagh, 
was  away  at  the  time,  for  he  had  an  important  command 
farther  north  among  the  troops  which  were  investing 
Coleraine.  The  evidence,  as  far  as  it  goes,  tends  to 
suggest  that  Cormac  O'Hagan — while  the  most  successful 
of  Phelim's  commanders  in  the  north — was  a  humane 
man,  who  would  have  been  no  party  to  the  massacre 
of  defenceless  women  and  children.  In  any  event,  his 
name  does  not  appear  in  connection  with  the  outrages, 
which  were  the  work  in  both  places  of  the  O' Quins  and 
McVeaghs. 

A  graphic  account  of  the  doings  at  Moneymore  is 
furnished  by  the  evidence  of  Lady  Staples,  who,  from 
the  window  of  her  own  Castle,  where  she  had  been  im- 
prisoned since  the  first  day  of  the  rising,  had  a  clear  view 
of  all  that  passed.  In  her  own  words  "  she  did  see  the 
Scotch  woman  [mentioned  in  the  depositions  of  the  Red- 
ferns]  and  her  five  small  children,  with  several  others  of 
the  British  nation,  driven  along  by  the  rebels  to  be  mur- 
dered ;  and  she  saw  the  rebels  at  that  time  cutting  and 
slashing  the  poor  British  as  they  passed  by  her  window, 
among  whom  was  one  Archie  Laggan  miserably  cut,  his 
two  arms  being  half  cut  off  and  one  of  his  ears  cut  off 
and  hanging  down,  besides  several  other  grievous  wounds, 
in  so  much  that  she  heard  him  cry  out  and  beg  them  for 
God's  sake  to  let  him  lie  down  and  die."  *  Besides  the 
unhappy  Archie  Laggan  and  the  Scotch  woman  with 
her  five  small  children,  we  have  the  names  of  several 
others  who  figured  in  this  dismal  procession,  to  wit : 
Andrew  Laggan,  Thomas  Hartspur,  Edward  Ludnam, 
Thomas  Ludnam,  Andrew  Young  and  his  son  John, 
Edward  Jennings,  a  woman,  name  unknown,  and  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Matchett,  rector  of  Magherafelt,'  the  last- 
named  having  been  imprisoned  in  the  house  of  Lieutenant 
Thursby  since  October.4 

1  Dep.  of  James  Steile.  3  Dep.  of  the  Redferns,  father  and  son. 

1  Dep.  of  Lady  Staples.        «  Reid. 


1642]    TWENTY-FOUR  BURNED  IN  A  COTTAGE    217 

A  very  similar  scene  of  butchery,  but  on  a  larger  scale, 
was  enacted  at  the  same  time  at  Kilmore,  Co.  Armagh, 
from  which  it  would  seem  that  the  spirit  of  destruction 
had  been  generally  aroused  throughout  northern  Ulster. 
The  massacre  at  Kilmore  was  not  only  more  extensive 
than  those  at  Lissan  and  Moneymore,  but  was  also   of 
a  more  horrible  nature.    One   incident  was   particularly 
dreadful.     Twenty-seven  British  men,  women  and  children 
— mostly  women  and  children — were  driven  into  a  thatched 
cottage   belonging  to   an  old   woman  named  Mrs.  Anne 
Smith,  who  lived  there  with  her  daughter  Margaret  Clarke 
and   her  grandchildren.      After  the  prisoners   had  been 
confined  within  the  cottage,   a  mob  armed  with  pikes, 
skeans  and  bludgeons,  headed  by  a  woman  named  Jane 
Hamskin,  set  fire  to  the  thatch  in  several  places.    The 
cottage  soon  became  a  furnace,  and  in  the  end  the  roof 
fell  in  on  twenty-four  charred  bodies.     Mrs.  Smith  and 
her  daughter  escaped  through  a  hole  in  the  wall  which 
they  knew  of,  but  the  existence  of  which  was  concealed 
by  the  smoke  from  all  the  other  inmates,  except  a  small 
boy  named  Johnny  Wood  (whose  mother  and  sister  were 
burnt).     The  two  women,   on  emerging  from  the  house, 
were  knocked  on  the  head  with  bludgeons  and  left  for 
dead,    but   afterwards   recovered,    as   also   did   the   boy, 
who   was,    however,   badly   burnt.1    The   details   of  this 
incident  are  most  clearly  established,  for  not  only  have 
we  the  evidence  of  Mrs.  Smith  and  Mrs.  Clarke,  who  escaped 
the  holocaust  after  being  shut  up  in  the  cottage,  but  of 
several  other  deponents,  who  were,  at  the  time,  prisoners 
among  the  Irish,  and  from  whom  we  get  a  precise  list  of 
those  who  perished.    These  were  Richard  Jenny,  Frances 
Wood  and  one  of  her  children  (the  other  escaped),  Elizabeth 
Shipley,  Alice  Butterworth  and  her  two  children,  Ralph 
Hill  and  his  wife,  Alice  Throwe,  her  husband  and  three 
children,  two  children  belonging  to  Mrs.  Goodall,  James 
Gill  and  his  wife  and  three  children,  John  Martin,  James 
Metcalf  and  Mary  Metcalf.    Mrs.  Constable,  in  her  deposi- 
tion, adds  the  following  details  :    "  The  outcries,  lamen- 
tations and  shriekings  of  those  poor  murdered  persons 
was  exceedingly  loud  and  pitiful,  yet  did  nothing  prevail 
nor  mollify  the  hardened  hearts  of  their  murderers,  but 

i  Dep  of  Anne  Smith,  Margaret  Fillis,  Jane  Grace,  Christian  Stanhaw, 
Eleanor  Fullerton,  Captain  Perkins,  Ellen  Matchett  and  Joan  Constable. 


218  REBELLION  DURING  FEBRUARY  1642    [CHAP,  xiv 

they  most  boldly  made  brag  thereof,  and  took  pride  and 
glory  in  imitating  their  cries  and  in  telling  this  deponent 
and  her  husband  how  the  little  children  gaped  when  the 
fire  began  to  burn  them."  1 

The  burning  of  the  inmates  of  Mrs.  Smith's  cottage, 
so  far  from  satisfying  the  vengeance  of  the  Irish,  seems  to 
have  stimulated  it,  for  on  the  following  day  they  added 
to  the  number  of  their  victims  Euphemie  Clarke  and  her 
child,  Elizabeth  Smith,  Goodie  Beare,  Mary  Smith  and 
her  six  children,  John  Wing  and  his  wife,  Jane  Armstrong 
and  three  children,  Jane  Colt  and  two  children  (their 
father  had  already  been  hanged),  William  Bell  and  his 
wife,  Ellen  Millington  (very  barbarously),  John  Potter 
and  his  wife  and  three  children,  one  of  whom  Cormac 
O'Hugh  dragged  out  from  under  the  bed  by  its  ankles 
and  killed  by  knocking  out  its  brains  against  the  wall.2 
The  Potters'  servant,  Joan  Brian,  was  also  killed.  Joan 
Constable,  who  furnishes  the  details  of  this  massacre, 
was  stripped  to  the  skin,  but  escaped  death  by  being 
taken  under  the  protection  of  Cormac  O'Hugh.  Her 
husband,  Gabriel,  and'  his  mother,  who  was  over  eighty, 
had  been  killed  early  in  November  by  Patrick  O'Hagan. 
Joan  herself  had  since  found  shelter  in  the  house  of  Mrs. 
Doyne  at  Hockley.  On  the  occasion  of  the  February 
massacre  she  appears  to  have  kept  by  Cormac  O'Hugh's 
side  throughout  the  massacre — probably  as  her  only 
means  of  safety — for  she  was  a  witness  to  his  murder 
of  the  Potters'  children.  At  the  end  of  the  day  she  was 
conducted  back  by  Cormac  O'Hugh  himself  to  Mrs.  Doyne's 
house,  where  she  joined  her  sister,  Ellen  Matchett. 

1  Dep.  of  Joan  Constable.  2  Ibid. 


CHAPTER  XV 

THE    ROMAN    CATHOLIC    CHURCH    AND    THE    MASSACRES 

THE  general  mania  for  massacre  in  the  early  part  of  1642 
seems  to  have  been  primarily  due  to  Tirlough  Oge's 
defeat  at  Antrim,  aided  no  doubt  by  exaggerated  reports 
received  of  the  massacres  of  Irish  at  Templepatrick  and 
Magee  Island,  but  it  was  also,  beyond  question,  due  in 
part  to  the  introduction  of  religion  as  an  inflammatory 
agency.  It  would  seem  as  though  Sir  Phelim  O'Neil, 
Rory  Maguire  and  the  other  Irish  leaders,  feeling  that  the 
tide  of  revolution  was  setting  in  less  decidedly,  and  cer- 
tainly less  successfully,  than  they  had  anticipated,  urged 
upon  the  more  fanatical  among  the  priests  to  bring  to 
bear  every  religious  engine  at  their  disposal,  with  a  view 
to  stimulating  a  hatred  of  the  British,  which  was  by  no 
means  as  universal  or  as  acute  as  they  desired.  The 
Christmas  massacres  at  Kinard,  and  the  Ballinrosse  and 
Carrickmacross  massacres  at  the  New  Year,  were  all 
conducted  by  priests,  whom  we  may  confidently  assume 
to  have  been  of  the  fanatical  firebrand  pattern.  These 
are  the  only  recorded  cases  in  Ulster  in  which  we  find 
priests  prominently  superintending  massacres,  but  it  is 
quite  clear,  from  the  evidence  of  the  depositions,  that, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  year  1642,  there  was  a  deter- 
mined attempt  to  introduce  religious  fanaticism  as  an 
additional  incentive  to  the  acute  Anglophobia  at  which 
Sir  Phelim  aimed.  The  Irish  were  told  that  it  was  as 
lawful  to  kill  a  heretic  as  it  was  to  kill  a  dog  or  a  pig,1 
and,  as  practically  all  the  seventeenth  century  colonists 
were  heretics,  this  was  only  another  way  of  saying  that  it 
was  as  lawful  to  kill  the  English  and  the  Scotch  as  it  was 
to  kill  dogs.  It  is  a  matter  of  certainty  that  the  better- 
*  Dep.  of  Mr.  Nicholas  Simpson. 
219 


220         THE  ROMAN  CATHOLIC  CHURCH      [CHAP,  xv 

class  priests  would  combat  such  a  doctrine  with  all  the 
influence  of  which  they  were  capable,  but  it  is  a  matter 
of  equal  certainty  that  the  incendiary  clerics  would  have 
the  easier  and  the  more  popular  task.  The  doctrine  of 
murder  in  the  name  of  God,  when  once  seized  upon  by 
the  popular  imagination,  is  not  easily  extinguished ; 
nor  is  Ireland  a  country  where  unpopular  doctrines  are 
ever  very  ardently  preached  by  those  in  authority,  whether 
lay  or  clerical.  The  motto  of  the  nation  is  rather  to  go 
with  the  tide,  and  if  possible  in  advance  of  it,  no  matter 
in  what  direction  it  may  be  setting. 

The  primary  reason  which,  at  this  point  in  the  contest 
between  colonists  and  natives,  suddenly  brought  religion 
to  the  front  line,  is  to  be  found,  we  may  be  sure,  in  the 
ever-growing  belief  of  the  Irish  that  "  they  must  either 
destroy  the  English  or  the  English  must  destroy  them." 
This  belief  was  no  doubt  genuinely  held  by  the  leaders 
and,  in  their  case,  the  belief  was  fully  justified.  They 
had  offended  past  any  possible  hope  of  forgiveness,  and 
they  no  doubt  reasoned  that  their  term  of  respite  from 
the  judgment  with  which  they  were  faced  would  be  pro- 
longed by  the  total  extirpation  of  the  race  from  whom 
retribution  was,  in  the  end,  to  be  expected.  The  rank 
and  file — from  their  very  obscurity — had  obviously  less 
to  fear  from  the  sword  of  justice  than  had  the  leaders, 
and  it  may  have  been  the  leaders'  consciousness  of  this 
fact  that  prompted  them  to  enlist  the  services  of  the  fire- 
brand priests.  The  question,  however,  as  to  the  exact 
motive  that  was  responsible  for  the  introduction  of  ex- 
treme measures  must  always  remain  undecided.  All 
that  we  know  for  certain  is  that  the  responsibility  did  not 
rest  with  the  executive  body  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  The  incendiary  efforts  of  such  priests  as  Sir 
Phelim  was  able  to  enlist  were  not  only  contrary  to  the 
Multifarnham  Edict,  but  evoked  unqualified  condemnation 
from  the  General  Assembly  of  Roman  Catholic  Bishops 
and  Clergy  who  met  in  the  spring  of  1642  at  Kilkenny. 
Nevertheless  it  is  certain  that  the  crusade  preached  by  the 
firebrands  had  its  effect  even  on  the  better  educated ;  for 
we  learn  that,  in  the  spring  of  1642,  Tirlough  Oge,  who 
had  for  months  treated  his  prisoner,  Mr.  Nicholas  Simpson, 
in  a  friendly  fashion,  suddenly  turned  upon  him  a  gloomy 
countenance,  and  said  that  he  could  no  longer  befriend 


1642]  CATHOLIC  CONDEMNATION  OF  ATROCITIES  221 

him,  as  he  was  now  convinced  that  it  was  a  deadly  sin  to 
harbour  a  heretic.1 

The  General  Assembly  of  Roman  Catholic  Bishops  and 
Clergy  which  was  summoned  to  deal  with  the  new  situation, 
met  at  Kilkenny  on  May  10,  1642,  and  sat  till  the  18th,  on 
which  day  it  passed  resolutions  in  strong  condemnation 
of  all  cruelties  and  robberies  practised  upon  Protestants. 
It  further  threatened  with  excommunication  "  all  mur- 
derers, maimers,  strikers,  thieves  and  robbers."  All 
Ordinaries  and  Roman  Catholic  priests  were  exhorted 
to  put  a  stop  to  the  prevailing  atrocities  by  all  the  means 
at  their  disposal.1  The  intentions  of  the  General  Assembly 
of  Bishops,  etc.,  were  no  doubt  excellent,  but,  by  the  time 
they  had  passed  their  resolutions,  the  work  of  exter- 
mination in  central  Ulster  was  all  but  complete,  and 
the  opportunities  for  massacre  in  other  parts  of  the  province 
were  a  thing  of  the  past ;  so  that  the  Kilkenny  resolutions 
might  just  as  well  have  been  left  unpassed,  for  all  the 
good  they  worked. 

Whatever  the  cause  may  have  been — whether  religious 
fanaticism,  racial  hatred,  or  the  growth  of  the  idea,  which 
had  now  taken  firm  hold  (and  which  one  cannot  doubt 
was  encouraged  by  both  the  lay  and  clerical  sections  of 
the  exterminatory  party),  that  the  Irish  must  either  destroy 
the  British  or  be  destroyed  by  them — the  fact  stands  out 
that,  with  the  advance  of  the  year  1642,  the  massacres 
of  British  prisoners  in  the  unprotected  districts  assumed 
wholesale  proportions.  The  first  indication  of  this  change 
of  policy  came  in  the  form  of  a  notice  issued  by  Sir  Phelim 
to  the  effect  that  he  could  no  longer  protect  the  British 
survivors  in  the  Blackwater  district,  but  that  he  would 
undertake  to  convoy  in  safety  such  as  wished  to  go  to 
Coleraine,  Lisburn  or  Dromore.  The  conditions  under 
which  the  survivors  of  the  British  prisoners  were  living 
were  miserable  in  the  extreme,1  and  the  offer  was  eagerly 
accepted.  Convoys  numbering  from  80  to  150  set  out 
joyfully  from  Tynan,  Kinard,  Killyman,  Loughgall, 
Kilmore,  and  even  from  the  Glasslough  district  of  Mona- 
ghan,  for  the  nearest  points  held  by  the  British.  On  the 
road,  these  convoys  were  joined  by  small  detached  parties 

1  Examination  of  Mr.  Nicholas  Simpson. 
«  John  Curry,  Letter  to  Walter  Harris, 
s  See  dep.  of  Elizabeth  Price. 


222          THE  ROMAN   CATHOLIC   CHURCH      [CHAP,  xv 

of  British  who  had  so  far  been  sheltered  in  the  houses  of 
the  friendly  Irish  ;  together  they  went  on  towards  their 
supposed  destination,  but  they  got  no  farther  than  the 
Bann.  At  Portadown  those  bound  for  Lisburn  were  told 
to  go  on  and  join  their  friends,  but  the  middle  part  of  the 
bridge  had  been  removed,  and  to  go  on  meant  a  long  drop 
into  the  icy  waters  of  the  Bann,  flooded  with  the  winter 
rains.  Those  who  resisted  were  forced  over  the  brink 
with  swords,  pikes  and  skeans,  and  in  the  end  the  escort, 
relieved  of  its  charge,  went  back  for  a  further  supply  of 
refugees.  Those  bound  for  Dromore  met  the  same  fate 
at  Scarva  bridge. 

One  lot  of  eighty,  very  early  in  March,  crossed  the  Bann 
in  safety  by  the  Scarva  bridge  and  actually  reached 
Co.  Down.  Here  the  escort  handed  them  over  to  a 
party  of  Irish  under  the  command  of  Phelim  McArt  Brian 
O'Neil,  who  undertook  to  bring  them  to  Dromore,  but 
actually  took  them  to  Lough  Kernan.  The  lake  was 
covered  with  thin  ice,  and  on  to  this  thin  ice  Phelim  McArt 
and  his  men  flung  the  babies  of  the  party  as  far  as  they 
could  across  the  ice.  The  mothers  followed  in  an  attempt 
to  save  their  children  and  broke  the  surface  of  the  ice. 
The  whole  eighty  were  eventually  drowned  except  one 
man  and  one  woman.1  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
convoy  system  was  adopted  because  it  induced  the  British 
to  go  voluntarily  to  their  death,  and  for  this  reason  the 
first  drownings  were  mainly  carried  out  in  the  distant 
waters  of  the  Bann  instead  of  in  the  Blackwater,  Callan 
or  Tollwater.  As  none  came  back  to  tell  the  tale,  it  was 
assumed  that  the  earlier  convoys  had  safely  reached  their 
destination,  and  others  were  only  too  ready  and  eager  to 
follow  in  their  trail.  It  is  quite  certain,  however,  that 
the  pretence  of  a  happy  convoy,  protected  by  a  friendly 
escort,  was  not  long  kept  up  after  the  refugees  were  once 
fairly  on  the  road. 

A  tanner  named  William  Clarke  was  the  first  to  come 
back  and  tell  those  at  home  what  really  happened  on  these 
expeditions.  Clarke  actually  got  as  far  as  the  bridge  at 
Portadown,  and  was  saved  at  the  last  moment  by  Hugh 
O'Neil,  who  was  the  leader  of  the  party,  or  at  any  rate  one 
of  those  in  command.  O'Neil  at  the  same  time  saved 
two  other  men  named  William  Taylor  and  George  Morris 

1  Dep.  of  Peter  Hill,  High  Sheriff  of  Down. 


1642]  BROWNINGS  AT  PORTADOWN  228 

and  a  woman  named  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Price.  Why  this 
woman  was  saved  is  not  known.  She  herself  would 
probably  have  preferred  to  follow  the  others  into  the  Bann, 
for  she  had  to  stand  by  and  witness  the  murder  of  her 
five  little  children,  Adam,  John,  Anne,  Mary  and  Jane. 
Her  husband,  Captain  Ruys  Price,  had  been  killed  by  Sir 
Phelim's  orders  early  in  the  rising.  "  The  aforesaid 
children,"  William  Clarke  afterwards  deposed,  "  were 
most  barbarously  used,  by  forcing  them  to  go  fast  with 
pikes  and  swords  thrust  into  their  sides.  They  murdered 
three  by  the  way,  and  the  rest  they  drove  to  the  river 
aforesaid  and  there  forced  them  to  go  from  the  bridge, 
which  was  cut  down,  and  with  their  pikes  and  swords  and 
other  weapons  thrust  them  down  headlong  into  the  said 
river."  1  A  woman  named  Campbell,  when  at  the  ex- 
tremity of  the  bridge,  seized  the  man  who  was  forcing  her 
over,  and,  holding  him  tight  in  her  arms,  jumped  into  the 
river.  Both  were  drowned.* 

Clarke  and  Taylor  were  saved  because  they  were  tanners 
by  trade,  and,  from  that  time  on,  they  and  Thomas  Taylor, 
another  tanner  and  a  brother  of  William,  were  kept  to 
work  for  Hugh  O'Neil.  The  Taylors'  mother,  however, 
and  their  little  brother  Henry,  who  were  without  technical 
skill,  were  drowned  by  David  McVeagh  in  the  Tollwater. 

The  number  of  those  drowned  at  these  two  bridges  is 
ascertainable  within  broad  limits.  Sir  Phelim  himself 
boasted  that  he  had  drowned  680  at  Scarva  bridge.1 
The  deposition  of  Margaret  Bromley,  who  was  a  prisoner 
with  the  Irish,  goes  far  towards  corroborating  this  figure, 
for  she  swore  in  her  evidence  that  the  Irish  had,  to  her 
knowledge,  drowned  at  Scarva  four  separate  batches 
numbering  respectively  100,  80,  60  and  50.4 

In  the  case  of  Portadown  the  lowest  estimate  places 
the  number  of  victims  at  308  and  the  highest  at  1,000.' 
Mulhollan,  the  author  of  Warr  of  Ireland,  makes  an 
effort  to  minimise  the  numbers  drowned  at  Portadown 
by  reproducing  a  conversation  in  which  he  took  part. 
"  The  numbers  drowned  at  Portadown,"  he  writes,  "  ex- 
ceed not  ninety  persons.  My  ground  for  the  same  is  that 
I  had  the  same  account  from  an  Englishman  who  had  the 

1  Dep.  of  William  Clarke.  3  Dep.  of  Dr.  Robert  Maxwell. 

•  Dep.  of  James  Shaw.  *  Dep.  of  Margaret  Bromley. 

6  See  Dep.  of  Gertrude  Carlisle,  Owen  Frankland,  Richard  Newbury 
and  Eleanor  Fullerton. 

16 


224          THE  ROMAN   CATHOLIC   CHURCH      [CHAP,  xv 

good  fate  to  escape  that  day,  and  from  some  of  the  Irish 
who  were  spectators."  l  He  adds  the  further  information 
that  all  those  so  drowned  were  inhabitants  of  Portadown, 
and  that  they  were  drowned  in  revenge  for  the  Magee  Island 
massacre.  Both  these  statements  may  be  true,  but  it 
does  not  seem  possible  that  they  can  both  apply  to  the 
same  occurrence.  We  have  the  sworn  testimony  of  Philip 
Taylor,  a  Portadown  man,  who  deposed  that  196  persons, 
all  residents  in  Portadown,  were  drowned  there  by  Toole 
McCann  towards  the  beginning  of  the  rising.*  Mrs.  Price 
deposed  that  115  were  drowned  there  on  November  2. 
Both  these  statements  probably  have  reference  to  the  same 
occurrence,  which  was  the  drowning  of  the  British  residents 
at  Portadown  early  in  the  rising,  so  as  to  guard  against 
any  attempt  on  their  part  to  interfere  with  the  use  of  the 
bridge  by  the  rebels.  This,  however,  was  long  before  the 
Magee  Island  massacre.  The  drowning  of  convoys  from 
a  distance  belongs  to  a  later  date.  In  any  event,  it  is 
clear  that  Mulhollan's  informant  was  an  eye-witness  of 
one  drowning  occurrence  only,  for  he  speaks  of  "  that  day." 
It  is  common  ground  that  a  number  of  convoys  were  de- 
spatched to  Portadown  at  intervals  during  the  first  seven 
months  of  the  rising.  None  of  the  depositions  make 
mention  of  any  very  large  numbers  drowned  there  in  one 
day  (Philip  Taylor's  196  is  the  largest,  and  this  is  probably 
an  exaggeration),  but  they  all  speak  of  various  batches  of 
prisoners  from  the  Blackwater  district  that  were  sent  to 
Portadown  to  meet  their  death,  generally  under  the  charge 
either  of  Toole  McCann  or  of  Manus  O'Cahan.  Anthony 
Stratford's  evidence  is  to  the  effect  that  these  batches 
generally  numbered  about  forty,  and  that  the  total  number 
drowned  at  Portadown  was  308.  Far  greater  numbers, 
according  to  him,  were  drowned  in  the  Blackwater,  Toll- 
water  and  Callan  than  at  Portadown.  Three  hundred, 
he  tells  us,  were  drowned  in  one  day  in  a  mill-pool  in  the 
Tyrone  part  of  Killyman.  It  is  only  in  accordance  with 
probability  that  the  numbers  drowned  in  the  more  conve- 
nient waters  of  the  Blackwater  and  its  tributaries  should 
far  exceed  those  that  were  conveyed — at  some  expenditure 
of  time  and  trouble — to  Portadown.  When  Owen  Roe 
questioned  the  Irish  as  to  the  numbers  of  British  that  they 
had  drowned,  they  replied  that  they  had  drowned  about 

1  Warr  of  Ireland.  *  Dep.  of  Philip  Taylor. 


1642]          MURDER  OF  LORD  CAULFIELD  225 

400  at  Portadown,  but  so  many  more  in  the  Blackwater 
that  they  could  not  count  them.1 

After  the  exposure  of  the  convoy  fraud  by  the  return 
of  William  Clarke  and  Elizabeth  Price,  the  trouble  of  taking 
the  prisoners  to  the  Bann  was  dispensed  with,  and  they 
were  drowned  more  conveniently  in  the  rivers  nearer  at 
hand.  Fifty-five  persons,  all  tenants  of  Sir  Phelim's, 
were  drowned  in  the  Blackwater  at  Easter.*  Later  on, 
we  are  told  that,  on  one  occasion,  200  were  first  murdered 
with  knives  on  the  bridge  over  the  Blackwater  and  then 
thrown  down  into  the  water,  so  that  for  a  time  the  river  ran 
red.*  The  chief  executioners  in  these  acts  of  wholesale 
murder  were  Manus  O'Cahan,  Toole  McCann,  Owen 
McKenna,  Patrick  Devlin  and  Donnell  O'Hagan. 

To  the  modern  student  of  the  rebellion,  from  a  humani- 
tarian point  of  view,  the  wholesale  murders  of  innocent 
people  are  very  dreadful,  but  at  the  time — owing  to  the 
humble  status  of  the  majority  of  the  victims — they  made 
less  stir  than  the  murder  of  Lord  Caulfield.  This  occurred 
on  March  1,  1642.  Caulfield  was  being  transferred  from  his 
own  Castle  at  Charlemont  to  Kinard,  under  the  charge  of 
Neil  McKenna  and  Neil  Modder  O'Neil,  and,  as  he  was 
entering  the  gateway  of  the  latter  place,  he  was  shot  by 
one  of  the  onlookers  named  Edmund  Boy  O'Hugh.  Sir 
Phelim  is  said  to  have  wept  when  he  heard  the  news,  and 
this  may  well  be  true,  for  great  efforts  were  being  made 
at  the  time  to  exchange  Lord  Caulfield  for  Lord  Maguire, 
who  was  awaiting  trial  in  the  Tower.  In  any  case,  it  is 
very  certain  that  Lord  Caulfield  was  worth  far  more  to 
Sir  Phelim  alive  than  dead.  None  the  less,  it  is  quite 
clear  that  Lord  Caulfield's  murder  was  only  a  single  in- 
cident in  a  comprehensive  scheme  of  massacre,  which  was 
organised  at  that  time  in  the  Kinard  district,  for  Mr. 
Darragh,  Lord  Caulfield's  chaplain,  and  fifty  others  were 
killed  on  the  same  day.*  It  is  probable  that  the  inclusion 
of  Lord  Caulfield  among  the  victims  was  an  accident.  Sir 
Phelim  imprisoned  the  over-zealous  O'Hugh  in  Armagh, 
and,  when  the  latter  effected  his  escape,  which  he  did  very 
shortly  afterwards,  he  hanged  two  of  the  sentries.6  It  by 

Dep.  of  Elizabeth  Price. 

Dep.  of  Wm.  Skelton,  Humphrey  Stewart  and  John  Hickman. 

"  Relation  "  of  Audley  Mervyn. 

Dep.  of  Archie  Simpson. 

Gilbert's  Contemporary  History,  pt.  vi.  p.  381. 


226          THE  ROMAN   CATHOLIC   CHURCH      [CHAP,  xv 

no  means  follows,  however,  that  Sir  Phelim  did  not  connive 
at  the  prisoner's  escape. 

Lord  Caulfield's  death  had  no  immediate  political  result, 
but  it  had  very  disastrous  results  for  Sir  Phelim  eleven 
years  later,  for  it  was  Caulfield's  brother  who — in  revenge 
for  this  murder — relentlessly  hunted  him  down  and 
eventually  brought  him  to  justice. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

ORMONDE'S  CAMPAIGN  IN  MEATH 

A  BRIEF  survey  of  the  course  of  events  at  Drogheda, 
during  the  first  three  months  of  1642,  is  necessary  for  a 
clear  understanding  of  the  progress  of  the  rebellion. 

After  the  decisive  defeat  of  the  Irish  before  the  walls 
on  December  20,  Coll  McBrian  determined  that  the  surest 
and  safest  way  to  reduce  the  garrison  was  by  starvation. 
This,  with  his  large  investing  army,  should  have  presented 
no  very  great  difficulties,  as  it  was  well  known  that  those 
within  the  walls  were  already  in  considerable  straits, 
having  nothing  to  live  on  except  salt  herrings,  the  continued 
use  of  which  was  breeding  many  strange  diseases  among 
them.  Representations  had  been  made  to  the  Lords 
Justices  on  several  occasions  as  to  the  great  privations 
which  were  being  endured  by  the  garrison,  and  at  length, 
on  January  11,  a  small  ship  was  sent  round  from  Dublin 
laden  with  wine,  biscuit  and  ammunition.  The  ship  was 
small  and  the  supplies  on  board  were  very  limited,  because 
— as  the  Lords  Justices  were  careful  to  explain — it  was 
desired,  before  sending  larger  supplies,  to  see  whether  it 
was  practically  possible  to  get  a  ship  up  the  Boyne. 
The  Irish,  with  a  view  to  proving  that  this  was  not  so, 
had  sunk  an  old  ship  in  mid-channel,  and  had,  in  addition, 
erected  a  strong  boom  across  the  river;  but,  in  spite  of 
these  obstacles,  the  relief  ship  reached  its  destination 
without  any  difficulty.  The  success  of  this  venture  very 
nearly  proved  the  undoing  of  the  garrison,  for,  in  their 
elation  at  the  receipt  of  these  welcome  supplies,  they  lost 
their  heads  and  caroused  so  freely  on  the  wine  which  had 
been  sent  as  to  get  extremely  drunk.  Information  as 
to  the  state  of  the  garrison  was  quickly  conveyed  by  some 
traitor  within  the  walls  to  Coll  McBrian  McMahon,  with 
the  result  that,  during  the  same  night,  500  picked  men  were 

227 


228       ORMONDE'S   CAMPAIGN   IN  MEATH   [CHAP,  xvi 

silently  let  into  the  town  through  a  small  disused  gate 
opened  for  them  by  the  same  traitor  or  traitors.  Accord- 
ing to  Carte,  who  relies  for  his  facts  mainly  on  Bernard's 
Whole  Proceedings,  the  town  was  now  as  good  as  taken, 
and,  had  the  Irish  either  seized  the  Mill  Mount  on  which 
were  four  guns  which  dominated  the  town,  or  opened  the 
main  gate  to  the  whole  Irish  army,  nothing  could  have 
saved  the  place.  Instead,  however,  of  taking  either  of 
these  obvious  courses,  McMahon's  500  men,  who  had 
probably  been  too  freely  primed  with  whisky,  started 
screeching  and  holloaing  at  the  top  of  their  voices.  Tich- 
borne  himself  was  one  of  the  first  to  be  awakened  by  the 
extraordinary  noise,  and,  running  out  in  his  sleeping-clothes, 
he  quickly  realised  the  position  of  affairs  and  caused  a 
drum  to  be  beat.  The  inebriate  members  of  the  guard 
by  degrees  assembled,  and,  arming  themselves  with  pikes, 
charged  down  on  the  invaders.  The  Irish  had  a  great 
predilection  for  short  stabbing  pikes,  which  had  their  uses 
for  certain  work,  but  which,  in  a  face-to-face  encounter, 
were  no  match  for  the  long  pikes  with  which  the  garrison 
was  armed,  and  McMahon's  men  were  gradually  beaten 
back  to  the  gate  through  which  they  had  entered,  leaving 
200  of  their  number  dead  within  the  walls.1 

The  food  supplies  brought  by  the  pinnace  lasted  a  bare 
fortnight,  at  the  end  of  which  time  real  famine  began  to 
make  its  appearance.  Tichborne  sent  Captain  Cadogan 
to  Dublin  to  explain  the  extremities  to  which  the  garrison 
was  driven.  So  great,  in  fact,  were  the  needs  of  Tichborne 
and  his  men  that — in  spite  of  the  great  danger  attending 
such  operations — foraging  parties  had  to  be  sent  out  from 
time  to  time  to  see  what  they  could  get  in  from  the  country 
around.  In  encounters  with  the  enemy  these  foraging 
parties  proved  so  uniformly  successful  that,  in  the  end, 
Tichborne  was  emboldened  to  attempt  a  more  ambitious 
enterprise.  A  party  under  the  command  of  Captain  Mark 
Trevor  was  sent  out  to  a  place  four  miles  distant  from 
the  town,  where  it  was  reported  that  some  of  the  enemy's 
herds  were  being  grazed ;  and  with  such  good  success  did 
they  carry  out  their  mission  as  to  bring  back  to  the 
starving  garrison  eighty  cows  and  250  sheep.*  These 
welcome  supplies  carried  them  on  till  February  20,  on  which 
day  two  more  ships  arrived  from  Dublin,  bringing  a  good 

i  Bernard's  Whole  Proceedings.  I  Carte. 


1642]       END   OF  THE   SIEGE  OF  DROGHEDA        229 

supply  of  food  and   four  companies   of  foot-soldiers   as 
reinforcements. 

Sir  Phelim,  who  had  accurate  information  of  all  the 
intended  movements  of  the  Government  both  through 
Michael  Doyne,  junr.,  andlby  means  of  a  certain  Mrs.  May 
in  Dublin,1  knew  in  advance  all  about  the  proposed  de- 
spatch of  these  ships,  and  he  very  wisely  determined  to 
make  his  supreme  effort  before  the  expected  reinforcements 
arrived.  He  accordingly  hurried  down  from  the  north  at 
the  head  of  700  of  his  own  men,  and,  taking  over  the  com- 
mand of  the  investing  force  for  the  second  time,  organised 
a  grand  assault  upon  the  town,  which  was  timed  to  take 
place  in  the  early  morning  of  February  20,  i.e.  before  the 
expected  reinforcements  should  have  had  time  to  arrive. 
A  number  of  scaling-ladders  were  provided,  and  the  general 
arrangements  were  very  complete  ;  but,  though  the  assault 
was  well  thought  out  and  admirably  timed,  it  proved  a 
complete  failure.  This  was  the  last  attack  made  upon 
the  place  by  the  Irish. 

Strengthened  by  the  arrival  of  his  four  new  companies, 
and  invigorated  by  the  fresh  food  supplies,  Tichborne  now 
began  making  daily  sallies  from  the  town,  rather  for  pur- 
poses of  war  than  of  food  supplies.  In  all  such  sallies  his 
men  met  with  invariable  success. 

On  March  3  Ormonde,  with  3,000  men,  left  Dublin  for 
the  north.  The  moment  the  news  of  this  advance  reached 
Coll  McBrian  at  Drogheda  the  siege  was  raised  and  the 
men  engaged  upon  it  were  dispersed  to  their  several 
counties  ;  the  Leitrim  and  Cavan  men — as  we  have  already 
seen — contributed  to  the  final  capture,  by  the  O'Reillys, 
of  Keilagh  and  Croughan  Castles. 

On  the  same  day  (February  20)  that  Sir  Phelim  made 
his  last  unsuccessful  assault  on  Drogheda,  Sir  Richard 
Grenville  and  Colonel  Monck  arrived  in  Dublin  from  Eng- 
land with  400  horse  and  1,500  foot.  They  brought  with 
them,  however,  no  money  or  provisions,  both  of  which 
were  very  badly  needed,  no  less  in  Dublin  than  in  the  sur- 
rounding country.  The  army  pay  was  terribly  in  arrears. 
The  Drogheda  garrison  had  received  no  pay  for  seventeen 
weeks.8  The  rest  of  the  army  was  in  a  very  similar  condition. 
All  the  country  round  Dublin  and  the  Pale  was  wasted 
and  produced  nothing.  Scarcity  reigned  everywhere. 
1  See  Dep.  of  Dr.  Robert  Maxwell.  *  Carte, 


230        ORMONDE'S  CAMPAIGN  IN  MEATH    [CHAP,  xvi 

The  army  was  entirely  fed  by  notes  of  credit  issued  to 
the  merchants,  who  were  themselves  very  scantily  provided 
with  the  necessaries  of  life.  In  all  these  circumstances, 
the  arrival  of  the  new  troops  was  by  no  means  viewed  by 
the  Lords  Justices  as  an  unmixed  blessing.  There  was 
far  more  urgent  need  for  food  and  money  than  for  men, 
and  all  additions  to  the  latter  increased  the  difficulties 
in  regard  to  the  former.  In  order  to  relieve  the  pressure 
in  Dublin,  the  Lords  Justices  determined  to  send  Ormonde 
north  with  a  reconnoitring  force  of  3,000  men.  Ormonde, 
who  was  Lieutenant-General  of  all  the  State  Forces  in 
Ireland,  had  just  inflicted  a  very  severe  defeat  on  the 
rebels  at  Kilsalghen.  The  immediate  effect  of  this  victory 
was  to  reassure  the  Lords  Justices  as  to  their  own  safety 
and  that  of  Dublin,  as  to  which  they  had  before  been  pe- 
culiarly nervous.  They  felt  that  it  was  at  length  safe  to 
let  Ormonde  and  his  army  out  of  sight  of  the  metropolis, 
and  he  was  accordingly  instructed  to  proceed  north  and 
inflict  all  the  damage  possible  on  the  persons  and  property 
of  the  rebels,  but  on  no  account  to  stay  away  more  than 
eight  days.  In  pursuance  of  these  instructions,  Ormonde 
advanced  as  far  as  Drogheda  without  encountering  any 
opposition.  Here  he  made  a  thorough  examination  of 
the  defences  of  the  town,  and — in  view  of  their  extreme 
dilapidation — congratulated  Tichborne  on  his  remarkable 
achievement  in  successfully  defending  the  town  for  so  long. 

The  investing  force  had  now  entirely  disappeared,  and 
Ormonde  was  strongly  in  favour  of  marching  straight 
ahead  and  successively  capturing  Dundalk  and  Newry. 
He  sent  back  a  message  to  this  effect  to  Dublin,  but  received 
in  reply  a  peremptory  order  from  the  Lords  Justices  that 
he  was  on  no  account  to  advance  north  of  the  Boyne. 
The  only  concession  they  would  make  was  that  he  should 
be  allowed  to  stay  out  ten  days  instead  of  the  eight  originally 
allotted  him. 

The  obvious  wisdom  of  Ormonde's  advice  was  made 
very  clear  by  the  arrival  of  spies  from  Dundalk, 
who  reported  that  Sir  Phelim's  hold  on  that  place  was 
anything  but  secure,  his  army  being  in  fact  in  a  state  of 
mutiny.  They  reported  that  500  men,  whom  he  and 
Colonel  Plunket  had  recently  led  on  to  march  against 
the  British,  had  refused  service.  Two  of  the  ringleaders 
had  been  hanged,  whereupon  the  rest  of  the  men  threw 


1642]  ORMONDE'S  EXPEDITION  TO  THE  NORTH    281 

down  their  arms  and  made  off.  This  news  meant  that 
Dundalk  was  to  be  had  for  the  asking,  and  Ormonde 
sent  word  back  to  Dublin  to  this  effect,  backed  up  by  strong 
recommendations  from  all  the  leaders,  including  Ormonde 
himself,  Tichborne,  Lord  Moore  and  Sir  Simon  Harcourt 
in  favour  of  an  immediate  advance  into  the  heart  of  the 
rebel  country.  Nothing,  however,  could  shake  the  ob- 
stinacy of  the  Lords  Justices,  and  on  March  17  Ormonde 
— in  obedience  to  his  orders — returned  to  Dublin,  having 
accomplished  absolutely  nothing  beyond  pillage. 

In  considering  and  passing  judgment  upon  the  apparently 
criminal  action  of  the  Lords  Justices  in  vetoing  the  further 
advance  of  Ormonde's  troops,  it  must  not  be  lost  sight  of 
that  we  are  almost  entirely  dependent  on  Carte  for  any 
knowledge  we  may  have  of  the  real  reasons  for  Ormonde's 
failure  to  push  farther  ahead.  Carte  was  Ormonde's 
biographer  and  panegyrist  and,  as  such,  was  necessarily 
bitterly  hostile  to  the  Lords  Justices  who  were  in  the 
opposite  political  camp.  As  Ormonde's  biographer,  too, 
Carte  was  under  the  necessity  of  finding  some  excuse  for 
his  failure  to  take  advantage  of  the  opportunity  that 
offered  of  crushing  the  rebellion  and  of  rescuing  the  thou- 
sands of  British  who  were  at  this  time  still  prisoners  with 
the  Irish,  and  who  were  afterwards  massacred.  The 
responsibility  for  Ormonde's  return  is  no  light  one  for 
any  man  or  group  of  men  to  bear.  The  desperate  condition 
of  the  scattered  British  colonists  in  Ulster  was  a  matter 
of  common  knowledge.  It  was  practically  certain  that 
— if  deserted — many  of  them  would  suffer  speedy  and, 
possibly,  horrible  deaths.  It  is  incontestable  that,  had 
Ormonde  continued  his  advance — he  could,  in  co-operation 
with  the  Drogheda  garrison,  and  the  Lisburn  and  Lagan 
forces,  have  carried  all  before  him.  Such  being  the  case, 
the  question  cannot  but  arise  in  the  mind  of  the  reader 
of  Carte's  story  as  to  whether  Ormonde's  return  was 
actually  forced  upon  him,  as  Carte  would  have  us  believe, 
by  the  obstinate  attitude  of  the  Lords  Justices,  or  whether 
it  was  the  result  of  some  secret  understanding  between 
himself  and  Sir  Phelim.  Ormonde's  subsequent  intrigues 
with  the  native  Irish  in  the  interests  of  Charles  I,  and  his 
ultimate  alliance  with  them,  cannot  but  strengthen  the 
suspicion  that  the  latter  may  have  been  the  case,  and  that 
the  Lords  Justices'  order  to  return  may  not  have  been  so 


232        ORMONDE'S  CAMPAIGN  IN  MEATH    [CHAP,  xvi 

definite,  or  so  opposed  to  Ormonde's  advice,  as  Carte 
would  wish  us  to  believe.  According  to  Carte,  the  Lords 
Justices  were  personally  interested  in  the  extension  of 
the  rebellion  from  the  belief  that,  the  longer  it  lasted, 
the  greater  would  be  the  land-confiscations,  in  which  they 
themselves  would  be  substantial  participators.  Such  a 
theory  is  not  easy  of  acceptance.  It  is  difficult  to  believe 
that  any  sane  men  could  deliberately  sacrifice  the  lives 
of  thousands  of  their  fellow  countrymen  to  a  problematical 
gain  in  real  estate. 

Although  there  may  be  reasonable  grounds  for  question- 
ing Carte's  explanation  of  Ormonde's  premature  return 
to  Dublin,  there  can  be  none  for  questioning  the  opinion 
which  he  expresses  that  the  Ulster  rebellion  could  have 
been  entirely  suppressed  in  the  spring  of  1642  had  Or- 
monde's march  to  the  north  been  extended.  As  events 
fell  out,  it  dragged  on  miserably  for  another  eleven  years, 
and,  before  peace  finally  reigned,  one-third  of  the  popula- 
tion of  Ireland  had  succumbed  to  the  sword,  famine  or 
pestilence. 

The  extent  of  the  possibilities  that  lay  before  Ormonde's 
larger  force  was  quickly  demonstrated  by  the  achievements 
of  Tichborne's  wearied  little  Drogheda  garrison.  On 
March  23  he  left  the  town  he  had  so  long  and  gallantly 
defended,  and,  with  as  many  of  the  garrison  as  he  could 
spare,  marched  north  as  far  as  Atherdee,  without  meeting 
an  enemy.  At  Atherdee  there  was  an  attempt  to  block 
his  further  progress,  but  he  easily  brushed  it  aside  and 
passed  on  to  Dundalk.  This  important  place  had  been 
reoccupied  by  800  of  Sir  Phelim's  men  the  moment  Or- 
monde had  turned  his  back  on  the  north.  Tichborne's 
force  was  numerically  much  weaker,  but  he  resolved 
notwithstanding  to  attack,  and,  on  the  night  of  March 
26,  carried  the  place  by  assault  with  the  loss  of  eighteen 
men  only,  the  majority  of  the  Irish  garrison  making  good 
their  escape  in  the  dark.1  The  garrisons  necessary  for  the 
protection  of  Drogheda  and  Dundalk  left  Tichborne  too 
weak  to  attempt  the  capture  of  Newry,  and  he  returned 
with  the  balance  of  his  force  to  Drogheda. 

1  Carte. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

THE     LANDING     OF    MONRO 

ON  April  15  General  Robert  Monro  landed  at  Carrick- 
fergus  with  2,500  Scottish  troops,  which  was  the  total 
number  that  actually  materialised  out  of  the  10,000  which 
had  been  promised.1  In  order  to  provide  accommodation 
for  the  new-comers,  Colonel  Chichester  and  Lord  Conway 
shifted  their  quarters  from  Carrickfergus  to  Belfast. 
Monro  remained  a  fortnight  at  Carrickfergus,  organising 
and  equipping  his  force,  and  then — leaving  800  men  in 
garrison — he  set  out,  in  company  with  Chichester  and 
Conway,  for  Newry,  the  capture  of  which  place  was  held 
at  the  moment  to  throw  all  other  considerations  into 
the  shade.  The  army,  which  included  1,600  of  Monro's 
own  men,  500  of  Lord  Conway's,  500  of  Colonel  Chichester's, 
400  of  Lord  Ards'  and  400  of  Lord  Clandeboye's,  was  much 
harassed  by  unseen  enemies  while  penetrating  the  dense 
Kilwarlin  woods.  A  short  halt  was  called  at  Dromore, 
which  was  in  utter  ruins,  every  building  except  the  church 
having  been  burned  and  levelled  to  the  ground  by  Sir  Con 
Magennis  after  his  occupation  of  the  place. 

On  May  1,  an  island  in  Lough  Brickland,  strongly  oc- 
cupied by  the  rebels,  was  captured  after  a  lively  exchange 
of  shots,  during  which  a  bullet  passed  through  Colonel 
Chichester's  hair.  As  the  shots  produced  no  definite  result, 
it  was  finally  decided  to  invade  the  island.  There  was, 
however,  only  one  boat  available  and  that  moored  to  the 
shore  of  the  island.  Six  Scots  volunteered  to  swim  across 
and  bring  it  back ;  four  were  killed  in  the  attempt,  but 
the  other  two  managed  to  loose  the  boat  and  bring  it  safe 

1  Monro's  force  consisted  of  the  Earl  of  Argyll's  regiment,  the  Earl  of 
Eglinton's  regiment,  the  Earl  of  Glencairn's  regiment,  Lord  Lindsay's 
regiment,  Lord  Sinclair's'regiment  and  Col.  Hume's  regiment  (Reid). 
233 


284  THE  LANDING  OF   MONRO  [CHAP,  xvn 

to  shore.  A  party  then  crossed  in  the  boat,  the  island  was 
captured,  and  all  the  garrison  put  to  the  sword. 

Newry,  which  was  only  eight  miles  distant,  was  reached 
the  same  evening.  As  the  army  approached,  the  towns- 
people could  be  seen  fleeing  in  all  directions,  and  the  town 
itself  was  practically  abandoned.  The  Castle,  however, 
was  still  defiant,  and  a  certain  number  of  the  townspeople, 
either  neglecting  or  disdaining  to  run  away,  took  refuge 
inside.  To  Monro's  summons  to  surrender,  Hugh  Magennis, 
the  Constable,  replied  defiantly  that  he  could  easily  hold 
out  for  seven  months  and  intended  doing  so.  On  the 
second  day,  however,  i.e.  on  May  3,  he  changed  his  mind, 
and — upon  the  forcing  of  one  of  the  gates — surrendered 
unconditionally.  All  within  the  Castle,  including  Lady 
Magennis,  were  made  prisoners,  and  Sir  Edward  Trevor, 
Sir  Charles  Poyntz  and  his  son,  and  Captain  Smith,  who 
had  been  prisoners  since  October,  were  released.  The 
Irish  who  were  taken  in  the  Castle  were  retained  as  prisoners 
for  three  days,  but,  on  May  6,  sixty  men  and  two  priests 
were  executed  on  the  bridge  over  the  moat,  some  being 
shot  and  others  hanged.1  Shortly  after  the  executions 
on  the  bridge,  but  on  the  same  day,  some  of  the  soldiers 
got  hold  of  150  Irish  women  who  had  been  brought  out  of 
the  Castle,  and  had  drowned  twelve  of  them  in  the  moat 
before  Sir  James  Turner  was  able  to  stop  them  and  rescue 
the  remainder.8  Some  of  the  men  were  made  examples 
of  for  these  outrages.  Turner  throws  the  blame  of  the 
drowning  of  the  women  not  so  much  on  Monro  as  on  Lord 
Conway,  who,  as  Marshal  of  Ireland,  was  in  supreme 
command.  On  the  day  following  the  surrender  of  Newry 
Castle,  i.e.  on  May  4,  Carlingford  surrendered  to  Sir  Henry 
Tichborne. 

Monro  has  been  severely  criticised  for  his  severity  to 
the  Newry  people,  especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
two  English  knights  and  Sir  Charles  Poyntz's  son  had  been 
delivered  back  safe  into  British  hands.  There  can  be  very 
little  doubt,  however,  that  the  executions  at  Newry,  as 
well  as  the  murder  of  the  women  by  the  soldiery,  were 
provoked  by  some  massacres  of  British  subsequent  to  the 
capture  of  Newry,  of  which  the  news  had  reached  Monro 

1  Monro's  Despatch. 

*  Memoirs  of  Sir  James  Turner.  See  also  Passages  in  Ireland;  Gilbert's 
Contemp.  Hist.,  Appendix. 


1642]         MONRO'S  SEVERITIES  AT  NEWRY  285 

before  the  date  of  the  execution.1  We  have  this  important 
fact  established  very  clearly  in  Roger  Pike's  "Narrative," 
which  confirms  all  the  dates  given  in  Monro's  despatch  and 
in  Turner's  Memoirs.  According  to  all  these  three  accounts 
the  Castle  was  taken  on  May  3,  and  both  the  executions 
and  the  murders  of  the  women  took  place  on  May  6.  Those 
were  not  days  when  lengthy  trials  preceded  executions 
under  martial  law.  The  inference,  therefore,  is  that  some- 
thing occurred  between  May  3  and  May  6  which  very 
greatly  exasperated  both  the  British  commander  and  the 
common  soldiers,  and  which  found  its  expression  in  the 
execution  of  the  prisoners  and  the  murder  of  the  women. 
The  only  occurrence  which  can  have  had  such  an  effect 
would  be  the  massacre  of  the  British  prisoners  in  Armagh. 
The  final  massacre  in  Armagh  itself  did  not  take  place  till 
May  6,  i.e.  on  the  same  day  as  the  executions  at  Newry, 
but  prior  to  this  occurrence  several  detachments  of  prisoners 
had  been  sent  away  from  Armagh  under  escort  for  safe 
delivery  to  the  British  and  had  been  done  to  death  on  the 
road.  All  these  circumstances  of  the  case,  taken  in  con- 
junction with  ascertained  dates,  leave  little  doubt  that  the 
particular  occurrence  which  provoked  the  Newry  execu- 
tions and  murders  was  the  massacre  at  Scarva  bridge  of 
some  60  British  men,  women  and  children  (i.e.  the  exact 
number  put  to  death  at  Newry)  by  Toole  McCann  on 
either  the  3rd  or  4th  of  May.  Sir  Henry  Tichborne  arrived 
at  Newry  from  Carlingford  on  the  5th,  and  from  him 
Monro  reports  that  he  could  learn  nothing  as  to  the  state 
of  the  country  outside.  This  would  be  only  natural,  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  Tichborne's  road  from  Carlingford 
lay  in  the  very  opposite  direction  to  Armagh  and  Scarva 
bridge. 

The  Armagh  massacres,  which  lasted  from  the  3rd  till 
the  6th  of  May,  were  of  a  very  dreadful  character.  They 
were  the  outcome  of  a  decree  passed  at  Killeevan  by  a 
convention  of  all  the  Irish  leaders  about  the  middle  of 
April  to  the  effect  that  all  the  surviving  British  in  Ulster 
were  to  be  exterminated,  irrespective  of  age  or  sex.  This 
terrible  edict  was  issued  in  consequence  of  the  general 
consternation  which  followed  on  the  news  of  Monro's 
landing  at  Carrickfergus.2  It  was  felt  by  the  Irish  leaders 

1  See  Roger  Pike's  "  Narrative,"  Ulster  Journal  of  Archeology. 
a  Dep.  of  Robert  Aldridge. 


286  THE  JLANDING  OF  MONRO  [CHAP,  xvn 

that  retribution  was  at  the  door  and  that,  before  it  fell 
upon  them,  it  would  be  a  satisfaction  to  have  made  the 
crime  worth  the  penalty.  This  decision  was  as  ill-judged 
as  it  was  brutal,  and  it  exercised  a  most  disastrous  effect 
on  after  events,  for  we  learn  from  Sir  James  Turner's 
Memoirs  that,  from  that  time  on,  Monro's  men  gave  no 
quarter,  "  a  thing  inhuman  and  unfavourable,  for  the 
cruelty  of  one  enemy  cannot  excuse  the  inhumanity  of 
another.1 

Sir  Phelim,  in  his  defence  at  his  trial,  admitted  the  May 
massacres,  but  pleaded  that  they  were  in  retaliation  for 
Monro's  severities  at  Newry.  That  this  was  the  exact 
reverse  of  the  truth  is  conclusively  proved  by  the  dates 
given  above,  for  the  massacre  of  some  of  the  detachments 
sent  away  from  Armagh  under  escort  was  an  accomplished 
fact  before  the  date  of  the  Newry  executions,  and  the 
final  massacre,  at  the  burning  of  Armagh  itself,  took  place 
on  May  6,  i.e.  on  the  same  day  as  the  executions  at  Newry. 
We  get  this  date  fixed  with  great  exactitude  from  the 
evidence  of  Mrs.  Beare,  who  had  two  children  killed  in 
the  massacre,  and  who  states  positively  that  the  burning 
of  Armagh  took  place  "  on  the  Friday  following  May  Day  "  2 
i.e.  the  6th. 

It  seems  perfectly  clear,  from  a  study  of  dates,  that  the 
executions  at  Newry  were  in  the  main  provoked  by  the 
earlier  stages  of  the  May  massacres.  It  must  not  be  lost 
sight  of,  however,  that,  altogether  apart  from  the  Armagh 
massacres,  there  were  certain  other  factors  which  were  quite 
sufficient  in  themselves  to  constitute  capital  charges  against 
the  Irish  executive  in  Newry.  When  Sir  Con  Magennis 
had  first  surprised  Newry  on  October  23  all  the  British 
except  those  of  superior  rank  had  been  stripped  to  the 
skin  and  told  to  quit  the  town  on  pain  of  instant  death. 
They  tried  to  make  for  Dromore,  but  many  were  killed 
on  the  way,  and  many  more  died  of  cold  and  hunger.*  For 
these  deaths — according  to  the  code  of  the  times — some 
retribution  had  to  be  exacted.  Then,  again,  there  was  the 
very  bad  case  of  Mr.  Tutch,  Lieutenant  Trevor  and  others. 
The  circumstances  were  these.  In  January  1642  Lieu- 
tenant Trevor  and  his  wife,  Mr,  Tutch,  minister  of  Newry, 
and  fourteen  others  had  been  sent  by  Sir  Con  Magennis  to 

1  Memoirs  of  Sir  James  Turner.  *  Dep.  of  Jane  Beare. 

8  Dep.  of  Thomas  Richardson. 


1642]     MURDER  OF  MR.  TUTCH  AND  OTHERS        287 

Newcastle  in  Co.  Down,  where  they  were  to  have  been 
shipped  for  Dublin  in  exchange  for  some  Irish  prisoners, 
who  were  to  be  released  on  their  arrival.  After  the  con- 
voy had  set  out  from  Newry,  Sir  Con  suddenly  repented  of 
his  determination  to  exchange  his  late  prisoners,  and 
personally  pursued  them  to  Newcastle,  where  he  caused 
the  entire  party  to  be  taken  into  an  adjacent  wood,  hanged 
up  naked  to  the  branches  by  the  wrists,  and  then  hacked 
to  death  with  swords.1  It  would  seem  as  though  Sir  Con 
had  actually  done  some  of  the  hacking  with  his  own  hands. 
The  only  member  of  the  party  who  managed  to  escape 
was  a  tapster  named  Thomas  Green,  who  succeeded  in 
bribing  the  man  in  whose  custody  he  was  to  let  him  go. 

Sir  Con  and  his  brother  Daniel  are  described  as  humane 
men,  in  particular  contrast  to  their  niece,  Lady  Iveagh, 
who,  although  very  young,  was  of  a  cruel  and  sanguinary 
nature.  It  cannot  be  said,  however,  that  the  stripping 
and  turning  out  of  the  Newry  inhabitants  at  the  end  of 
October  savours  very  strongly  of  humanity,  though,  by 
comparison  with  more  conspicuous  deeds  of  brutality, 
it  would  appear  as  a  mild  offence.  Sir  Con  is  said  to  have 
suffered  such  terrible  pangs  of  remorse  for  the  part  he  had 
played  in  the  Newcastle  butchery  that  he  was  for  ever 
after  haunted  by  fears  of  vengeance  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Tutch's  spirit.8 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  Sir  Con's  extraordinary 
behaviour  is  to  be  accounted  for  on  the  grounds  that, 
between  the  dates  of  the  sending  off  of  his  prisoners  and 
his  pursuit  of  them  to  Newcastle,  he  had  received  news — 
probably  grossly  exaggerated — of  the  massacres  at  Temple- 
patrick  and  Magee  Island,  and  that,  in  a  spirit  of  mad 
revenge,  or  rather  of  retaliation,  he  galloped  after  them  to 
Newcastle  and  vented  his  fury  on  the  naked  bodies  of  the 
unfortunate  seventeen. 

The  May  massacres  are  usually  associated  with  the 
town  of  Armagh  and  the  district  immediately  surrounding 
it,  the  reason  being  that  more  detailed  particulars  have 
reached  us  from  those  parts  than  from  the  districts  which 
lay  farther  removed  from  the  British  headquarters. 
There  is  no  doubt,  however,  that  they  were  common  to 

1  Dep.  of  Elizabeth  Croker,  Capt.  Henry  Smith,  Arthur  Magennis,  Roger 
Holland,  Elizabeth  Pearce,  Peter  Hill  and  Thomas  Green. 

2  Dep.  of  Elizabeth  Croker. 


288  THE   LANDING  OF   MONRO  [CHAP,  xvii 

all  central  Ulster,  i.e.  to  Monaghan,  Armagh,  Fermanagh 
and  south-east  Tyrone.  In  most  places  they  started  on 
May  Day,  and  continued  for  the  greater  part  of  the  week, 
but  in  some  places  the  official  date  was  anticipated,  as  for 
instance  at  Tandaragee,  where,  on  April  30,  the  O'Hanlans 
killed  James  Bromley,  Richard  Wigton,  William  Todd  and 
his  wife  and  child,  George  Copeland  and  his  wife,  John  Toft 
and  his  wife  and  three  children,  John  Hartley,  Anne 
Watkins,  Anne  Cooke  and  two  children  and  John  Adams.1 

The  town  of  Armagh,  however,  was  undoubtedly  the 
chief  place  affected  by  the  Killeevan  decree,  for  this  place 
had  so  far  been  the  main  sanctuary  of  such  of  the  colonists 
in  central  Ulster  as  had  been  unable  to  make  their  way  to 
any  of  the  fortresses  in  occupation  by  the  British.  Hugh 
O'Connell,  the  first  Governor  of  Armagh,  and  the  two 
Crellys,  Edmund  and  Teige,  who  held  positions  of  authority 
in  the  town,  had  from  the  first  adopted  a  humane  and 
tolerant  attitude,8  and,  as  a  consequence,  the  town  soon 
became  densely  packed  with  British  refugees  who  there 
sought  and  found  friendly  shelter  from  the  bloody  doings 
outside.  Even  when  Tirlough  Oge,  Sir  Phelim's  brother, 
superseded  O'Connell  as  Governor,  there  had  been  no 
change  in  the  treatment  of  the  British  refugees.  The 
better-class  prisoners,  such  as  Sir  William  Brownlow  and 
Mr.  Nicholas  Simpson,  were  kept  in  Tirlough  Oge's  house, 
where,  we  are  given  to  understand,  they  received  con- 
siderate treatment,  and  those  of  humbler  rank  remained 
free  from  molestation. 

On  either  the  2nd  or'  3rd  May,  probably  the  3rd,  Sir 
Phelim,  accompanied  by  a  number  of  his  lieutenants,  rode 
into  Armagh  with  the  intention  of  destroying  the  town 
by  fire  so  as  to  make  it  untenable  by  Monro.  Before  this 
could  be  done,  however,  the  British  inmates  had  to  be 
disposed  of.  In  order  to  facilitate  this  operation  Sir 
Phelim  threw  out  a  proposal  that  they  should  be  sent  off 
in  various  detachments  under  escort  to  the  most  convenient 
British  centres.  The  British,  having  been  well  treated 
for  six  months  past,  had  no  premonition  of  their  impending 
doom,  and  accepted  with  eagerness  a  proposal  which 
seemed  to  offer  them  relief  from  their  dangerous  surround- 
ings. The  first  batch  to  be  sent  off  was  a  party  of  twenty 

1  Dep.  of  Margaret  Bromley  of  Tandaragee. 
1  Dep.  of  Jane  Beare. 


1642]  ALEXANDER  HOVEDON  239 

for  Newry,  under  the  charge  of  Alexander  Hovedon,  which 
left  Armagh  on  May  4.  It  is  probable  that  these  twenty 
were  prisoners  of  importance,  and  were  intended  to  be 
delivered  safe  in  exchange  for  a  similar  number  of  Monro's 
principal  prisoners  at  Newry,  among  whom  were  Hugh 
Magennis,  Lady  Magennis  and  Sara  Lady  Iveagh.  The 
latter  was  a  daughter  of  the  Earl  of  Tyrone,  and,  in  her 
younger  days,  had  been  celebrated  for  her  beauty.1  She  was 
captured  by  Monro's  men  in  the  Narrow  Water  Castle,  which 
latterly  had  been  her  residence.8  It  is  a  curious  fact  that, 
though  Mr.  Nicholas  Simpson  was  one  of  the  party  sent  to 
Newry  for  exchange,  Sir  William  Brownlow,  who  was  the 
most  important  prisoner  in  Armagh,  was  not  released  with 
the  others,  but  was  sent  off  to  Dungannon,  where  he  remained 
a  captive  for  six  weeks  longer.  It  can  only  be  assumed 
that  none  of  Monro's  prisoners  in  Newry  were  reckoned 
of  sufficient  importance  to  be  exchanged  for  him. 

After  delivering  his  twenty  prisoners  to  Monro  and 
presumably  receiving  an  equivalent  in  exchange,  Hovedon 
returned  to  Armagh  and  was  again  despatched  with  another 
lot  of  from  90  to  100  prisoners  destined  for  Dundalk. 
Toole  McCann  shared  the  charge  of  this  detachment  with 
Hovedon,  and  the  two  clearly  held  different  views  as  to 
their  responsibilities,  for,  while  Hovedon  brought  35  of  the 
number  safely  through  to  Dundalk,  Toole  McCann  drowned 
the  remainder  at  Scarva  bridge  over  the  Bann.3  There 
can  be  little  doubt  that  it  was  the  news  of  this  incident 
which  occasioned  the  executions  at  Newry  on  the  following 
day. 

Alexander  Hovedon  of  Ballinbeatagh  and  his  mother 
Catherine  Hovedon  had  both  proved  consistent  friends  of 
the  British  from  the  first  day  of  the  rising.  The  Hovedons 
were  of  English  descent.  Alexander's  grandfather,  Henry 
Hovedon,  was  an  Englishman  who  was  attached  by  the 
Government  to  the  service  of  Hugh,  Earl  of  Tyrone, 
with  the  idea  of  familiarising  The  O'Neil  with  English 
ways.  The  result,  however,  had  been  far  otherwise,  for 
Hovedon  had  adopted  Irish  ways  and  the  Roman  Catholic 
religion,  and  had  accompanied  Tyrone  when  he  fled  the 
country  in  1607.  His  son  Robert  married  Catherine 

1  See  Sir  Thomas   Bodley's  visit  to  Castlewellan,   Ulster  Journal  of 
Archaeology. 
§  Gilbert's  Contemp.  Hist.,  Appendix.          8  Dep.  of  Margaret  Bromley. 

17 


240  THE  LANDING  OF  MONRO  [CHAP,  xvn 

O'Neil,  the  widow  of  Tirlough  and  the  mother  of  Sir 
Phelim.  This  lady  was  a  daughter  of  Tirlough  McHenry 
of  the  Fews,  and  was  therefore  sister  to  Henry  O'Neil  of 
Glasdromin,  a  man  who  was  almost  as  well  disposed 
towards  the  English  as  his  sister.  Catherine  Hovedon 
was  wont  to  declare  that  the  only  injury  she  had  ever 
done  the  British  was  in  bringing  Sir  Phelim  into  the 
world.  To  make  amends  for  this  one  error,  she  did  all 
she  could  to  save  the  colonists  from  the  murderous  clutches 
of  her  son.  She  was  said  to  have  kept  twenty -four  refugees 
in  her  house  for  thirty-seven  consecutive  weeks.  Alexander 
Hovedon,  who  at  the  date  of  the  rising  was  a  young  man 
of  twenty-two — though  a  most  bigoted  and  fanatical 
Roman  Catholic — was  no  less  favourably  inclined  towards 
the  British  than  was  his  mother.  He  was  finally  killed 
in  1644  during  a  skirmish  in  Minterburn.1 

We  know  of  no  detachments  that  left  the  town  of 
Armagh  beyond  the  two  above  mentioned,  but  many 
were  sent  off  at  the  same  time  from  the  surrounding 
districts,  all  of  which  came  to  an  untimely  end.  There 
had  been  a  number  of  prisoners  since  the  beginning  of 
the  rising  in  and  around  Dungannon.  Of  these,  300  were 
now  sent  off  in  charge  of  Manus  O'Cahan  for  Coleraine. 
Before  they  had  gone  twelve  miles  on  their  way  they 
were  all  killed,  Mr.  Beveridge  the  minister  of  Killyman 
being  among  the  victims.8  It  is  probable  that  this  was 
the  incident  to  which  Captain  Stratford  referred  in  his 
deposition,  when  he  said  that  300  were  drowned  in  one 
day  in  a  mill-pond  in  Killyman.  Captain  Perkins,  who 
was  a  prisoner  in  Charlemont  all  through  the  rising, 
confirmed  this  story,  for  he  deposed  that  forty-eight 
families  in  Killyman,  who  had  previously  been  living 
under  Sir  Phelim's  protection,  were  all  killed  at  the  time 
of  the  Armagh  massacre.  As  soon  as  the  300  above 
mentioned  had  been  disposed  of,  another  batch  of  sixty 
from  Loughgall  were  sent  across  the  Blackwater,  and 
distributed  by  twos  and  threes  among  the  Irish  houses 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Brantry  Wood  in  Creevelough. 
Fifty-nine  out  of  the  sixty,  including  Mr.  Chadwell  and 
his  wife,  were  murdered  during  the  same  night.  The 
only  one  who  escaped  was  a  musician  named  Thomas 

1  Friar  O'Mellan. 

2  Dep.  of  Michael  Harrison.     See  also  Judge  Donellan's  address. 


1642]  THE  ARMAGH  MASSACRE  241 

Naul,  who  was  apparently  spared  on  account  of  his  accom- 
plishments. The  deposition  of  Michael  Harrison  leaves 
no  doubt  as  to  the  truth  of  this  story.  He  was  himself 
living  in  Killyman  at  the  time,  and  he  states  that,  on  the 
morning  following  the  arrival  of  the  Loughgall  British, 
he  made  many  inquiries  for  them  from  among  the  people 
around,  but  could  find  none  of  them,  and  was  told  by 
those  whom  he  interrogated  that  they  had  all  been  killed 
the  night  before.1 

When  Alexander  Hovedon  returned  from  convoying  his 
thirty-five  prisoners  to  Dundalk  he  found  the  town  of 
Armagh  reduced  to  ashes,  and  all  the  British  who  had 
remained  behind  butchered.  We  are  told  that  "  when  he 
beheld  the  ruins  of  Armagh,  he  wept  bitterly,  saying 
who  will  ever  trust  the  Irish  again,  who  have  neither 
kept  their  promise  to  God  nor  protection  to  men  ?  So 
great  was  his  indignation  that  he  swore  he  would  never 
again  draw  his  sword  in  Sir  Phelim's  quarrel,  and  .  .  . 
breathed  curses  against  the  British  if,  after  that,  they 
ever  spared  Irish  man,  woman  or  child."  2  There  must 
have  been  something  peculiarly  heartrending  about  the 
spectacle  of  Armagh's  ashes,  for  Mr.  Nicholas  Simpson, 
who  returned  with  Montgomery's  force  three  weeks  after 
he  had  been  sent  away  to  Newry  for  exchange,  was  little 
less  affected  by  the  sight  than  Hovedon  had  been.  "  There 
was  not,"  he  said  in  his  evidence,  "  a  roof  on  church  or 
house  to  cover  them.  All  were  burnt,  and,  looking  into 
some  houses,  they  found  divers  dead  bodies  burnt  in  the 
chimneys.  And  the  stones  in  the  streets  were  all  bloody 
and  like  the  floor  of  a  butcher's  slaughter-house,  since 
the  day  of  the  murder  of  the  inhabitants,  which  was  three 
weeks  before."  3 

The  burning  of  Armagh  town  and  the  massacre  of  the 
British  remaining  in  it  took  place  on  May  6,  under  the 
special  supervision  of  Neil  Modder  O'Neil,  Governor  of 
Castle  Caulfield,  Art  McHugh  O'Neil  and  Patrick  Donelly 
of  Knockearney.  This  man  must  not  be  confused  with 
Patrick  Modder  Donelly,  an  honourable  man,  who  reso- 
lutely refused  to  have  anything  to  do  with  the  butchery 
in  Armagh,  on  the  grounds  that  all  those  sheltering  there 

1  Dep.  of  Michael  Harrison. 

2  Records  of  High  Court  of  Justice,  Dublin. 

3  Examination  of  Mr.  Nicholas  Simpson. 


242  THE  LANDING  OF  MONRO         [CHAP,  xvii 

were  under  Sir  Phelim's  protection.1  His  namesake, 
Patrick  Donelly  of  Knockearney,  was  troubled  with  no 
such  scruples,  and,  we  are  told,  commenced  his  bloody  work 
by  murdering  a  surgeon  named  William  Wollard,  who, 
a  week  earlier,  had  dressed,  washed  and  otherwise  attended 
to  a  wound  in  Donelly's  arm.2 

It  is  not  easy  to  arrive  with  any  degree  of  accuracy 
at  the  numbers  who  perished  in  Armagh  itself.  Captain 
Perkins,  in  his  deposition,  stated  that  500  had  been  killed 
in  the  town  itself.  As  he  was  a  prisoner  in  Charlemont 
at  the  time,  he  can  only  have  obtained  this  figure  from 
the  Irish  themselves,  who  probably  exaggerated  the 
number  killed.  Judge  Donellan  said  that  580  had  been 
killed  in  and  around  Armagh  on  this  occasion ;  but  this 
statement  has  little  value  on  account  of  the  vagueness 
of  the  boundaries  denned.  Mr.  Nicholas  Simpson,  who, 
from  his  long  residence  in  Armagh  as  a  prisoner,  must 
have  had  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the  number  of  British 
in  the  town,  puts  the  number  of  victims  at  300,  and  this 
figure  is  probably  the  most  reliable.  Only  the  names  of 
a  few  of  the  victims  have  come  down  to  us,  and  those 
are  mainly  furnished  by  Edward  Saltinghall,  Mrs.  Beare 
and  Mrs.  Charity  Chapel,  who  give  us  the  names  of  those 
among  their  personal  friends  who  were  killed.  These 
names  include  Mr.  Starkey,  a  very  old  Presbyterian 
minister  and  his  two  daughters,  who  were  all  three  driven 
out,'  absolutely  naked,  to  a  bog-hole,  where  they  were 
thrust  under  the  water  with  pikes.  Mr.  Starkey  could 
not  walk  unaided,  and  had  to  be  supported  by  a  daughter 
on  each  side.  Mr.  John  Bartlett,  another  Presbyterian 
minister,  was  also  killed.  Mr.  Griffin,  the  curate,  was 
saved  by  Sir  Phelim,  but  his  wife  and  three  children  were 
killed.  James  Chapel,  two  of  Mrs.  Beare's  children, 
William  Wollard,  Thomas  Whitaker,  Thomas  Glover, 
Thomas  Collier  (a  hatter),  Christian  Symonds  (a  shoe- 
maker), William  Galvin  and  his  sister-in-law  and  two 
nieces,  Thomas  Sadler,  John  Keighley,  Peter  Keighley, 
Samuel  Birch,  Thomas  Foster,  James  Berrall,  Robert 
Berrall,  Patrick  Irvine,  James  Rhodes,  William  Marriot 
and  his  son,  Robert  Spring  and  Thomas  Woodward  were 
among  the  killed.5  Mr.  Griffin,  after  having  been  saved  in 

1  Dep.  of  Edward  Saltinghall.  2  Ibid. 

8  Dep.  of  Edward  Saltinghall,  Mrs.   Beare,    Mrs.    Chapel  and  John 
Henderson. 


1642]      WHOLESALE   MASSACRES   OF  BRITISH        243 

Armagh  itself  by  Sir  Phelim,  was  taken  by  Tirlough  Grome 
O'Quin  with  sixty  others  to  the  Blackwater  church,  where 
all  were  first  cruelly  tortured  and  then  burnt  alive  in  the 
church.  Mrs.  Price  accuses  Manus  O'Cahan  of  this  horrible 
deed,  but  it  is  clear  from  the  other  depositions  that  it 
was  the  work  of  Tirlough  Grome  O'Quin.  Manus 
O'Cahan  was  at  the  time  far  too  busily  engaged  murdering 
the  unhappy  British  in  the  Killyman  district  of  Tyrone. 
Tirlough  Grome  O'Quin,  who  was  one  of  the  bloodiest 
members  of  a  very  bloody  sept,  was  particularly  prominent 
in  the  May  massacres,  and  is  said  to  have  completely 
exterminated  the  British  in  the  Fews,  with  the  exception 
of  seven  families  who  were  saved  by  Henry  O'Neil,  who 
sheltered  them  in  his  house  at  Glasdromin  till  he  found 
a  fitting  opportunity  of  sending  them  to  Colonel  Sinclair 
at  Newry.  Henry  O'Neil  also  saved  the  lives  of  Mr. 
Fitzgerald  and  Mr.  Edward  Trevor,  who  fled  for  protection 
to  his  house  from  the  simultaneous  massacre  which  was 
being  carried  out  in  Co.  Monaghan.  For  these  acts 
of  mercy  Henry  O'Neil  was  very  much  abused  by  his 
two  sons  and  by  Sir  Phelim,  who,  in  order  to  mark  his 
displeasure  (and  at  the  same  time  benefit  himself  financially), 
carried  off  all  the  horses  and  cattle  belonging  to  Glas- 
dromin.1 

The  appalling  horrors  of  the  first  week  in  May  in  Co. 
Armagh,  and  in  the  southern  portion  of  Tyrone,  can  only 
be  dimly  pictured.  The  exterminatory  work,  however, 
was  clearly  very  thorough.  Tirlough  McBrian  O'Neil,  a 
cousin  of  Sir  Phelim,  came  to  Kinard  during  the  burning 
of  Armagh  and  there  murdered  Mr.  James  Maxwell  and 
his  wife  Grizel  (under  very  horrible  circumstances),*  Mr. 
Atkins  and  two  of  his  sons,  and  Mr.  Henry  Cowell.  All 
these  were  people  of  good  position.  Tirlough  McBrian 
then  scoured  the  neighbouring  parish  of  Tynan,  where 
he  managed  to  collect  153  British,  all  of  whom  he  drowned 
at  Corbridge  ;  three  men  only  appear  to  have  been  spared. 
These  were  Quinton  Glastonbury,  Thomas  Dykes  and 
John  Person,  who  were  sheltered  by  an  Irishman  named 
Daniel  Bawn  and  his  wife,  who  afterwards  sent  them  to 
Kinard,  where  they  formed  part  of  the  miserable  crowd 
of  unrecognisable  human  beings  who  were  liberated  by 
Lord  Conway  some  six  weeks  later.  Little  is  known  of 

1  Dep.  of  Dr.  Robert  Maxwell.  •  See  p.  175.         •  j 

* 


244  THE   LANDING   OF   MONRO         [CHAP,  xvn 

Daniel  Bawn  and  his  wife  except  that,  throughout  the 
rising,  they  played  a  friendly  part  towards  the  British, 
and  were  instrumental  in  saving  many  lives.  William 
Skelton,  who  was  servant  to  Sir  Phelim  and  a  prisoner 
at  large  at  Kinard,  in  his  deposition  attributes  the  massacre 
of  the  Tynan  people  to  Tirlough  Oge,  Sir  Phelim's  brother. 
Here,  however,  he  is  clearly  in  error,  for  Michael  Harrison, 
whose  opportunities  for  acquiring  exact  information  were 
infinitely  greater  than  Skelton's,  states  positively  that  it 
was  the  work  of  Tirlough  McBrian.  Both  agree  as  to 
the  number  killed.  It  is  probable  that  the  drownings 
at  Corbridge  entirely  denuded  the  parish  of  Tynan  of 
British.  Dr.  Robert  MaxweU,  who  wras  its  rector,  estimated 
that  over  600  were  massacred  in  the  parish  during  the 
rising. 

Another  far  larger  parish  where  the  extermination  seems 
to  have  been  very  complete  was  Kilmore.  This  parish 
had  already  suffered  very  severely  on  several  occasions. 
During  the  May  massacres  its  minister,  Mr.  Robinson, 
and  sixty  others  were  drowned  in  the  Blackwater.  This 
probably  completed  the  work  of  extermination.  Margaret 
Fillis,  who  was  a  resident  in  the  parish,  which  was  eight 
miles  square  and  contained  200  British  families,  reckoned 
that  not  more  than  twenty  in  all  escaped  ;  "  but  all  the 
rest,  being  a  great  multitude,  were  all  murdered  and  put 
to  death,  some  by  burning,  some  by  drowning,  some  by 
hanging,  some  by  famishing  or  starving,  some  by  the 
sword,  torture,  or  other  cruel  deaths."  l 

Around  Charlemont  there  was  also  complete  exter- 
mination. Shane  O'Neil,  the  Governor,  who  had  kept  a 
number  of  Scotchmen  and  Scotchwomen  to  plough  and 
generally  work  for  him  all  through  the  winter,  killed 
them  all  during  the  first  week  in  May.2 

The  early  May  massacres  marked  the  close  of  the  horrid 
series  of  atrocities  which  must  always  be  associated  writh 
the  Irish  rising  of  1641.  They  ceased  at  the  end  of  the 
first  week  in  May,  because — with  the  exception  of  the 
few  who  were  being  sheltered  in  the  houses  of  the  friendly 
Irish — all  the  British  colonists  remaining  in  the  districts 
to  which  the  relief  forces  had  not  yet  penetrated  had 
been  exterminated.  The  rest  had  safely  reached  British 
protection.  Henceforward  the  struggle  for  supremacy 

1  Dep.  of  Margaret  Fillis.  *  Dep.  of  Wm.  Skelton. 


1642]  LEGITIMATE  WARFARE  245 

between  the  native  Irish  and  the  British  colonists  was 
to  be  confined  to  the  field  of  legitimate  warfare,  but  of  a 
ruthless  and  sanguinary  warfare  in  which  no  quarter 
was  given  on  either  side,  except  to  persons  of  high  rank 
and  in  cases  where  garrisons  of  fortresses  surrendered  upon 
promise  of  life. 


CHAPTER    XVIII 

THE   NUMBER   OF   VICTIMS    CONSIDERED 

THE  number  of  British  colonists  who  perished  in  the 
seven  months  during  which  the  massacres  continued  has 
always  been  a  controversial  point  and  must  always  remain 
a  controversial  point.  The  absurdly  exaggerated  figures 
put  forward  by  Temple  and  Borlase  were  figures  furnished 
by  the  Irish  themselves,  while  they  yet  laboured  under 
the  belief  that  they  could  wipe  out  the  disgrace  of  their 
defeats  in  the  open  field  by  multiplying  the  number  of 
those  they  had  themselves  killed.  It  was  only  when 
they  had  made  the  discovery  that  massacre  does  not  rank 
as  a  feat  of  arms  that  they  began  to  accuse  those  who 
had  quoted  their  own  figures  of  gross  exaggeration.  In 
their  exultation  they  had  boasted  of  150,000  victims.  In 
a  book  entitled  Disputatio  Apologetica,  published  in  1645, 
a  Cork  priest  named  O'Mahoney  claimed  that  the  Irish 
had  killed  150,000  heretics  in  four  years,  and  expressed 
the  wish  that  the  number  had  been  greater.  Dr.  Bernard, 
Dean  of  Ardagh,  wrote  at  the  time  that  154,000  had  been 
killed  in  Ulster  alone,  "  by  the  enemy's  own  confession 
and  gloriation."  *  The  absurdity  of  these  figures  is  at 
once  made  clear  when  we  remember  that  they  were  pro- 
bably not  far  short  of  the  total  number  of  British  in  Ireland 
at  the  time.  Sir  William  Petty,  who  was  considered  the 
greatest  statistician  of  the  day,  estimated  that  37,000  of 
the  British  had  perished  by  one  means  or  another,  and 
Carte,  who  wrote  his  Life  of  Ormonde  in  1735,  accepted 
Petty's  estimate  as  being  reasonable.  Petty  based  his 
figures  on  an  estimate  of  the  British  population  in  Ireland 
before  and  after  the  rising,  a  method  of  reckoning  which 
is  perhaps  no  more  speculative  than  another.  It  is 
difficult,  however,  to  extract  a  justification  for  any  such 

1  Clogy's  Life  of  Bedell,  p.  191. 
246 


1642]      ESTIMATES   OF   NUMBERS   MASSACRED      247 

figure,  as  far  as  Ulster  is  concerned,  from  the  depositions 
of  survivors  and  other  contemporary  records.  These  pages 
lay  no  claim  to  any  close  scrutiny  of  affairs  outside  of 
Ulster,  but  it  is  an  established  fact  that — with  the  possible 
exception  of  Longford,  Leitrim  and  Sligo,  and  such  distant 
spots  as  Shrule,  Cashel  and  Silvermines — the  massacres 
were  not  of  a  wholesale  character  outside  the  limits  of 
Ulster,  for  the  very  good  reason  that  the  British  were  not 
to  be  found  there  in  sufficient  numbers.  If  37,000  were 
killed  in  all,  Ulster's  proportion,  on  such  a  computation, 
cannot  have  been  less  than  24,000.  In  the  light  of  the 
evidence  available  this  figure  would  still  appear  excessive. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  very  certain  that  the  sworn 
depositions  are  very  far  from  furnishing  a  complete  record 
of  outrages  committed.  Many  small  outlying  settlements 
were  so  completely  obliterated  as  to  leave  no  witness  to 
tell  the  story.  The  Plantations  of  the  London  Companies 
in  Co.  Londonderry  undoubtedly  suffered  heavily,  especially 
in  the  southern  part  of  the  county.  The  story  of  the  re- 
volting cruelty  used  in  the  killing  of  Archie  Craig,  and 
others  with  him,1  shows  that  the  murders  committed  in 
Co.  Londonderry  were  equal  in  brutality,  even  if  not  in 
extent,  to  any  of  which  we  have  knowledge.  Many  from 
this  county  were  undoubtedly  killed  before  they  could  get 
to  Coleraine,  and  the  witnesses  of  such  murders  may  them- 
selves have  succumbed  to  the  mortality  in  Coleraine.  The 
massacre  period  in  this  district  must,  however,  always 
remain  more  or  less  a  sealed  book,  for  there  are  few 
depositions  from  Co.  Londonderry. 

Donegal  suffered  but  little,  thanks  to  the  energetic 
action  of  the  Lagan  Force,  but  there  were  some  very  brutal 
murders  of  British  by  the  McSweeneys  in  the  Dogh  dis- 
trict, before  Sir  William  Stewart  had  time  to  reach  that 
part  of  the  county. 

In  north-west  Armagh  and  south-east  Tyrone  there 
were,  by  Sir  Phelim's  own  confession.*  very  few  survivors 
among  the  colonists.  The  Irish  leader  claimed  that  he 
had  not  left  man,  woman  or  child  of  British  blood  alive 
in  the  Minterburn  district,  or  in  the  Plantations  of  Sir 
John  Hamilton,  Lord  Charlemont  and  Lord  Mountnorris.* 

1  See  dep.  of  Nicholas  Fulton  and  Janet  Minnis. 
8  Judge  Donellan's  address. 

3  Dep.  of  Margaret  Bromley,  John  Wisdom,  George  Ldtchfield,  Philip 
Taylor,  Henry  Read  and  Thomas  Green. 


248  THE  NUMBER  OF  VICTIMS       [CHAP,  xvin 

The  evidence,  both  from  the  Irish  side  and  the  British 
side,  points  to  a  fairly  complete  extermination  in  this 
part  of  the  country,  at  any  rate  of  the  women  and  children. 
Many  of  the  Tyrone  men  concentrated  at  the  first  alarm 
on  Newtownstewart.  Some  took  their  women  and 
children  with  them,  but  a  number  of  these  were  afterwards 
sent  back,  when  it  was  found,  at  the  end  of  the  first  fort- 
night, that  the  Irish  in  most  districts  were  inflicting  no 
personal  injury  on  the  British.  Most  of  these  went  back  to 
their  deaths.  The  savage  mood  of  Barnet  Lindsay  and  his 
forty  men,  which  resulted  in  the  Templepatrick  massacre, 
arose  from  a  conviction  that  all  their  families  in  the  Dun- 
gannon  district  had  been  massacred  while  they  were  away.1 

Captain  Anthony  Stratford,  who  had  every  opportunity 
of  learning  the  truth,  deposed  that  1,200  were  killed  in  the 
parish  of  Killyman  alone.  The  "Manor"  of  Clonfeacle, 
as  it  is  called  in  the  Down  Survey,  appears  to  have  fared 
no  better,  and  Tullahogue,  which  was  Barnet  Lindsay's 
home,  had  evidently  no  trace  left  in  it  of  British  women  or 
children.  In  short,  it  appears  fairly  clear  that  all  the 
British  in  south  and  east  Tyrone  who  failed  to  reach  the 
shelter  of  Augher,  Aghentain  or  Newtownstewart,  were 
exterminated,  except  in  cases  where  they  found  shelter 
in  the  houses  of  friendly  Irish.  Of  these  Daniel  O'Hagan 
stands  out,  in  this  part  of  the  country,  as  the  most  con- 
spicuous. This  good  man  succeeded  in  saving  numbers 
of  the  colonists  from  the  cruelty  of  his  own  sept,  in  con- 
sideration of  which  he  was  afterwards  not  only  exempted 
from  transportation  to  Connaught  under  the  Cromwellian 
settlement,  but  was,  in  addition,  granted  some  of  the  lands 
of  Art  Oge  O'Neil  in  Antrim.  There  were  doubtless  many 
others,  more  obscure  but  none  the  less  friendly,  who 
played  the  good  Samaritan  to  the  British,  but  whose  names 
have  not  come  down  to  us. 

In  the  case  of  the  three  southern  counties  of  Ulster,  we 
have  no  particulars  of  any  massacres  in  early  May,  but  we 
have  certain  prima  facie  evidence  that  such  massacres  did 
take  place — at  any  rate  in  Co.  Monaghan — in  the  hurried 
flight  of  Mr.  Aldridge  to  Enniskillen,  and  of  Mr.  Trevor 
and  Mr.  FitzGerald  to  Glasdromin.  The  extermination 
of  the  British,  however,  in  this  county,  as  in  many  of  the 
other  counties  affected,  was  technical  rather  than  real. 

1  Warr  of  Ireland* 


1642]      BRITISH   SURVIVORS  IN  MONAGHAN          249 

Great  numbers  were  undoubtedly  massacred,  but  many 
others  found  safety  in  the  houses  of  the  friendly  Irish  of 
whom  some  were  to  be  found  in  most  districts.  Mr.  Robert 
Branthwaite  gives  the  names  of  nine  of  such  friendly  Irish 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Carrickmacross  alone.  Whether 
in  the  houses  of  these,  or  of  others  similarly  disposed,  it 
is  certain  that  a  number  of  the  Co.  Monaghan  British  did 
escape  the  May  massacres,  for  Lord  Conway  relates  that, 
when  he  took  Kinard  some  six  weeks  later,  he  not  only 
rescued  200  prisoners  from  that  place,  but  many  others  in 
addition  from  Co.  Monaghan.  The  total  number  of  survi- 
vors, however,  cannot  have  been  large,  for,  seventeen  years 
later  and  after  the  Cromwellian  Settlement,  a  census  of  Co. 
Monaghan  returned  only  434  British  as  against  3,649  Irish. 

In  Fermanagh  there  were,  by  May,  few  opportunities  left 
for  massacre,  the  majority  of  the  British  being  either  in 
safety  or  already  killed.  The  author  of  the  Aphorismical 
Discovery  states  with  pride  that,  early  in  the  year,  Rory 
Maguire  had  "  cleared  the  county  of  Fermanagh  of  the 
enemy."  Some  few,  however,  evidently  still  remained,  for 
we  know  that  one  batch  of  twenty-one — probably  refugees 
among  the  friendly  Irish — were  sent  off  at  the  time  of  the 
May  massacres  under  escort  towards  Ballyshannon.  After 
going  a  short  distance  the  escort  melted  away,  and  another 
party  of  Irish  fell  on  the  convoy  and  annihilated  it.1 

Of  the  Monaghan  prisoners  found  by  Lord  Conway  we 
know  nothing  beyond  the  fact  that  they  were  rescued, 
presumably  from  the  houses  of  the  Irish  where  they  were 
sheltering.8  It  appears  to  have  been  an  unwritten  law 
among  the  Irish  that  none  of  the  British  should  be  touched 
while  in  the  houses  of  natives  who  were  not  consenting 
parties  to  their  murder.  Thus  we  have  seen  Henry  O'Neil 
of  Glasdromin,  Neil  McCann,  Brian  Maguire,  Mrs.  Doyne, 
Mrs.  Hovedon  and  Daniel  Bawn  roundly  abused  by  their 
superiors  for  sheltering  the  British,  but  in  no  case  was 
any  attempt  made  to  drag  those  who  were  so  sheltered 
from  their  sanctuary. 

The  number  of  victims  who  perished  in  the  two  eastern 
counties  is  by  no  means  easy  to  arrive  at.  In  the  case  of 
Co.  Down  we  have  very  few  detailed  particulars,  and 
certainly  none  of  massacres  on  a  large  scale.  Walter 

1  Dep.  of  Anne  Blennerhasset. 

2  We  know  that  Neil  McCann  preserved  sixty  alive  in  Mr.  Berkeley's 
house  at  Glasslough. 


250  THE  NUMBER  OF  VICTIMS       [CHAP,  xvin 

Harris,  in  his  Hibernica,  states  that  the  number  of 
barbarities  practised  on  the  British  in  the  county  of  Down 
alone  amounted  to  3,000,  but  he  gives  no  particulars,  nor 
does  he  define  the  word  "  barbarity."  The  only  cases  as 
to  which  we  have  detailed  information  are  the  Lough 
Kernan  tragedy,  the  butchery  of  Mr.  Tutch  and  others 
at  Newcastle,  arid  several  cases  of  barbarous  atrocities 
practised  on  individuals  or  families,  as  for  instance  the 
shocking  cruelties  practised  upon  the  family  of  Mr.  Murray, 
minister  of  Killeleagh.1  Colonel  Henry  O'Neil,  in  his 
"Relation,"  makes  mention  of  a  victory  which  Phelim 
McToole  O'Neil  and  McCartan  achieved  over  the  Scots  of 
Co.  Down  at  Deirendreiat  in  the  spring  of  1642,  in  the 
course  of  which  three  hundred  of  the  latter  were  killed.8 
Colonel  O'NeiPs  "Relation,"  though  written  in  a  frankly 
partisan  spirit,  bears  on  the  whole  the  stamp  of  reliability. 
Doubts  as  to  the  actuality  of  this  fight  at  Deirendreiat 
are,  however,  raised  by  the  fact  that  no  other  record, 
either  English  or  Irish,  makes  any  mention  of  such  a  fight. 
Colonel  O'Neil,  who  does  not  claim  to  have  been  present 
on  the  occasion,  and  whose  evidence  is  therefore  purely 
hearsay,  refers  to  it  very  cursorily  and  gives  no  details, 
not  even  to  the  extent  of  mentioning  the  name  of  the  British 
commander.  In  the  case  of  the  three  authenticated  Irish 
victories  in  Ulster,  viz.  at  Benburb,  Garvagh  and  Bun- 
dooragh,  such  particulars  are  given  in  full,  together  with 
the  order  of  battle,  the  dispositions  of  the  rival  forces  and 
other  details  of  interest,  such  as  the  names  of  the  principal 
combatants  killed  or  taken  prisoners.  With  regard  to 
the  alleged  fight  at  Deirendreiat,  however,  Colonel  O'Neil 
merely  states  that  three  hundred  Scots  were  killed  by 
Phelim  McToole  and  McCartan.  This  may  have  been  a 
case  of  mere  massacre,  but  the  singular  omission  of  details, 
coupled  with  the  complete  silence  on  the  subject  of  all 
other  narrations  of  the  day,  suggests  very  strongly  that 
Colonel  O'Neil  is  in  error  as  to  his  dates,  and  that  he  has 
in  his  mind  an  expedition  undertaken  by  Phelim  McToole 
and  Rory  Maguire,  after  the  battle  of  Benburb,  to  which 
all  contemporary  historians — except  Colonel  O'Neil — make 
some  reference.  Of  this  expedition  the  author  of  the 
Aphorismical  Discovery  says  that  Phelim  McToole  and  Rory 
Maguire  were  sent  to  Co.  Down — which  Monro  had  eva- 

1  See  Hamilton  MSS.,  p.  35.  »  "Relation"  of  Col.  Henry  O'Neil. 


1642]       EXTENT  OF  CO.  DOWN  MASSACRES          251 

cuated  after  his  defeat  at  Benburb — "  where  no  opposition 
was  given  them ;  they  took  several  forts  and  holds,  burned, 
demolished  and  sacked  them  and  killed  as  many  of  the 
enemy  as  came  in  their  way."  1  The  omission  by  Colonel 
O'Neil  of  any  mention  of  this  incident,  of  which  three  other 
historians  give  details,*  and  his  introduction  of  a  very 
similar  incident  in  1642 — which  no  other  historian  mentions 
— leaves  little  room  for  doubt  that  he  confused  the  dates 
and  that  the  two  incidents  are  the  same.  Matters,  however, 
which  took  place  after  the  battle  of  Benburb  do  not  come 
within  the  category  of  massacres,  for  at  that  time  neither 
side  gave  any  quarter  except  to  persons  of  importance. 

In  connection  with  the  question  of  alleged  massacres  in 
Co.  Down,  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  Dr.  Robert  Maxwell, 
while  a  prisoner  with  the  Irish,  was  told  by  them  that,  in 
the  earlier  stages  of  the  rising,  Colonel  Brian  O'Neil  had 
killed  300  British  at  Killeleagh  and  1,000  more  in  other 
parts  of  the  county.3  The  evidence  as  to  these  figures  is 
only  hearsay  evidence,  and  the  figures  themselves  are  in 
any  case  probably  exaggerated ;  but  the  fact  that  such 
rumours  were  afloat  encourages  the  belief  that  extensive 
massacres  did  take  place  in  Co.  Down. 

In  Co.  Antrim  there  was  unquestionably  an  indiscrimi- 
nate massacre  of  any  British  who  failed  to  reach  sanctuary. 
Luckily  this  county  had  warning,  and  had  consequently 
time  to  arm  and  give  shelter  in  its  walled  strongholds  to 
great  numbers  of  scattered  women  and  children,  many  of 
whom  were  by  degrees  able  to  sail  to  England  from  Carrick- 
fergus.  It  is  beyond  question,  however,  that  very  many 
failed  to  reach  these  places.  In  the  Rawdon  Papers  there 
is  an  account  of  the  state  of  the  county  during  the  rebellion, 
written  by  a  contemporary,  which  is  of  the  highest  interest 
as  it  gives  us  a  very  clear  vision  of  a  situation  which  would 
otherwise  have  to  be  seen  through  a  partial  fog.  "  In 
Antrim,"  it  says,  "  the  Irish  rebels  made  slaughter  of  all 
men,  women  and  children  that  they  could  lay  hands  on, 
within  the  county  of  Antrim,  which  were  Protestants, 
burning  their  houses  and  corn.  Such  as  escaped  their 
fury  took  sanctuary  in  Carrickfergus,  Belfast,  Lisnagarvey 
[Lisburn],  Antrim  and  Larne,  and  the  two  houses  of  Temple- 

1  Aphorismical  Discovery,  vol.  i.  p.  117. 
*  Carte,  Mulhollan  and  author  of  Aph.  Disc. 
3  Dep.  of  Dr.  Robert  Maxwell, 


252  THE  NUMBER  OF  VICTIMS      [CHAP,  xvin 

patrick  and  Edenduffcarrick,  all  the  said  towns  and  houses 
being  near  the  one  to  the  other.  The  rebels  had  command 
of  all  the  rest  of  the  county  and  within  musket-shot  of  the 
towns  and  to  the  very  walls  of  the  two  houses,  until  the 
middle  of  June  1642,  so  as,  for  nearly  the  first  eight  months 
of  the  rebellion,  no  Protestant  had  any  quarter  granted  in 
that  part  of  the  county,  but  only  in  those  towns  and  two 
houses.  About  the  middle  of  June  1642,  the  British  army 
[Monro's]  marching  forth  dispersed  the  rebels,  made  several 
forts  of  earth  and  left  men  in  them,  which  served  for  a 
great  check  to  the  rebels,  formerly  exercising  all  absolutism 
of  dominion  in  that  county.  Unless  they  stole  out  ob- 
scurely and  sheltered  themselves  in  woods  and  fastnesses, 
that  county  was  freed  in  great  measure  from  them,  which 
is  the  true  state  of  that  county."  l 

Although  it  is  a  matter  of  certainty  that  the  details 
of  massacres  all  over  Ulster,  which  have  come  down  to 
us,  represent  but  a  very  small  fraction  of  those  actually 
perpetrated,  the  probability  still  remains  that  a  greater 
number  of  the  British  colonists  perished  from  exposure 
and  hunger  than  by  violent  deaths.  The  sufferings  of 
those  who  were  stripped  and  turned  adrift  at  the  beginning 
of  the  rising — delicate  women,  small  children  and  old  men 
— is  beyond  the  reach  of  imagination.  It  is  almost  in- 
conceivable that  any  should  have  survived.  It  must  be 
remembered  that  the  avowed  object  of  the  Irish,  in  strip- 
ping and  turning  out  these  poor  people,  was  that  cold  and 
hunger  should  play  the  part  of  executioners.  This  was  a 
surface  concession  to  the  letter  of  the  Multifarnham  edict. 
As  to  the  efficacy  of  such  methods  in  an  abnormally  cold 
season,  with  snow  and  frost  of  nightly  occurrence  and  with 
food  unprocurable,  there  can  be  no  question.  The  sur- 
vivors would  be  very  few,  and  those  only  of  the  strongest. 
Even  when  taken  into  the  houses  of  friendly  Irish,  the 
refugees  were  still  subject  to  great  privations,  and  were  in 
many  cases  made  to  work  for  their  lives  like  slaves.  Lord 
Conway  reported  that  the  Kinard  prisoners,  when  released, 
looked  more  like  ghosts  than  human  beings.  Sir  John 
Temple  tells  us  that  many  of  the  survivors,  who  gave 
evidence,  were  all  but  demented  with  their  sufferings  ; 
many  were  mutilated  in  various  ways  and  some  succumbed 
to  their  sufferings  shortly  after  they  had  given  their  evi- 

1  Berwick's  Rawdon  Paperat  no.  xrsvi. 


1642]    SUFFERINGS  OF  THE  BRITISH  PRISONERS   253 

dence.  Some  idea  of  the  terrible  conditions  of  life  which 
were  forced  on  those  who  were  prisoners  with  the  Irish  can 
be  gathered  from  Lady  Blayney's  written  account  of  the 
experience  of  herself  and  her  children. 

Lady  Blayney  was  the  sister  of  Lord  Moore  of  Mellifont, 
and,  as  a  prisoner  of  high  rank,  was  accorded  privileges 
which  were  denied  to  those  of  inferior  status  ;  for  in- 
stance, she  was  lodged  in  Monaghan  Castle,  while  the  other 
prisoners  in  Monaghan  were  confined  in  a  cell  so  small  that 
the  prisoners  had  to  lie  one  on  the  top  of  another.1  Yet, 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  she  was  a  privileged  prisoner  of 
high  rank,  she  and  her  children,  in  being  transferred  from 
one  part  of  the  county  to  another,  were  given  no  food  nor 
drink,  but  had  to  live  on  water  from  puddles  and  any  refuse 
which  they  could  find.  She  gives  a  pathetic  account  of 
the  joy  of  her  children  at  the  discovery  of  an  old  sheep- 
skin, off  which  they  made  a  meal.*  Even  more  pitiable  is 
the  account  given  by  Elizabeth  Price,  who  was  for  some 
time  one  of  the  Kinard  prisoners. 

"  And  this  deponent  for  her  own  part  was  thrice  hanged 
up  to  confess  to  money,  and  afterwards  let  down,  and 
she  had  the  soles  of  her  feet  fried  at  the  fire,  and  was 
often  scourged  and  whipped.  And  she  and  most  of  the 
rest  of  the  prisoners  were  so  pined  and  hunger-starved 
that  some  of  them  died,  and  lay  a  week  unburied.  And 
this  deponent  and  others  that  survived  were  forced  to 
eat  grass  and  weeds,  and  when  they  asked  for  leave  to 
go  out  and  gather  their  sustenance  it  was  denied,  so  that 
hunger  forced  them  to  burst  open  the  window  in  their 
prison  chamber,  and  to  scrape  and  rake  the  weeds,  moss 
and  anything  that  they  could  possibly  take  from  the  walls. 
And  in  that,  or  the  like  and  worse  distress,  they  continued, 
and  were  tossed  and  haled  from  place  to  place  in  the 
most  miserable  manner  for  fourteen  or  fifteen  weeks 
together,  their  allowance  of  viands  being  only  a  quart 
of  meal  among  six  for  three  days  and  not  half  water 
enough.  Inasmuch  as  at  last  they  had,  she  is  verily 
persuaded,  been  enforced  to  have  eaten  of  them  that 
died,  had  not  the  great  God  Almighty  put  some  end  to 
their  great  calamitous  miseries  by  the  landing  of  Owen 
Roe  O'Neil  out  of  Spain.  Who,  being  arrived  there  and 

1  See  dep.  of  the  Rev.  Henry  Steele. 

•  Lady  Blayney's  written  statement,  Shirley's  History  of  Monaghan. 


254  THE  NUMBER  OF  VICTIMS       [CHAP,  xvm 

informed  of  their  miserable  torments  and  sufferings,  and 
what  multitudes  of  people  the  said  Sir  Phelim  and  his 
confederates  had  murdered  and  put  to  death  by  the 
sword,  hanging,  drowning,  famishing,  burning  and  other 
cruel  and  barbarous  dealings,  he  did  not  only  enlarge  and 
set  at  liberty  this  deponent  and  the  other  prisoners  that 
survived  and  were  there  with  her,  but  gave  all  who  asked 
a  convoy  to  Dundalk.  And  upon  sight  of  this  deponent's 
and  the  other  prisoners'  miserable  and  starved  condition 
he,  in  this  deponent's  hearing,  exceedingly  reproved  the 
said  Sir  Phelim  O'Neil  and  his  other  partakers  for  their 
odious  and  merciless  cruelties,  saying  that  they  ought 
to  be  made  to  suffer  and  endure  the  like  torments  and 
deaths  they  had  forced  and  put  upon  the  Protestants.  And, 
after  some  bitter  words  had  passed  concerning  the  same 
between  Owen  Roe  and  Sir  Phelim,  he,  the  said  Owen 
Roe,  in  part  of  revenge  and  detestation  of  their  odious 
actions,  burned  some  of  the  rebels'  houses  at  Kinard,  and 
said  he  would  join-with  the  English  army  to  burn  the  rest." 
That  Elizabeth  Price  does  not  describe  any  isolated 
case  of  hardship  and  misery  we  may  be  sure.  The  con- 
dition of  the  Kinard  prisoners  was  probably  typical 
rather  than  exceptional.  Great  numbers  must  inevitably 
have  perished  when  subjected  to  ordeals  such  as  those 
described,  but  it  is  hopeless  to  make  any  attempt  to  reduce 
such  numbers  to  definite  figures.  In  the  cases  of  Dublin 
and  Coleraine  there  are  certain  records  of  the  mortality 
among  the  refugees  who  succeeded  in  reaching  these 
places,  but  there  are  none  of  the  thousands  who  never 
reached  sanctuary,  but  died  miserable  deaths  in  the 
woods  and  mountains,  or  in  crowded  prison-cells.  Much 
has  been  said  of  the  British  reprisals  which  followed  on 
the  massacres.  Irish  writers  have  dwelt  pathetically  on 
these,  while  entirely  ignoring  the  cruel  provocation  which 
occasioned  them.  Even  certain  English  historians,  in  a 
spirit  of  excessive  altruism,  have  glossed  over  the  Irish 
massacres,  and  given  undue  prominence  to  the  reprisals 
which  these  massacres  called  forth.  The  British  reprisals 
were  unquestionably  savage  and  heartless,  but  it  cannot 
be  claimed  that  they  were  more  savage  and  heartless  than 
was  to  be  expected  by  those  whose  arms  were  red  to  the 
elbow  with  innocent  blood.  It  was  not  merely  the  num- 
bers of  the  colonists  killed  which  provoked  the  retaliatory 


1642]    CRUELTY  OF  IRISH  WOMEN  AND   BOYS    255 

vengeance  of  the  British.  It  was  the  horrible  brutality 
which  too  often  accompanied  the  killing.  The  victims 
had  been  killed  with  unnecessary,  and,  in  many  cases, 
with  revolting  cruelty.  They  were  in  almost  every  case 
the  inoffensive  and  unoffending  neighbours  of  those  who 
killed  them.  In  many  cases  they  were  their  active  bene- 
factors. The  avengers,  as  often  as  not,  were  the  fathers, 
the  brothers,  and,  in  some  cases,  the  sons  of  those  who 
had  been  brutally  tortured  for  no  offence  except  that 
they  were  of  British  blood.  When  we  read  of  eighteen 
Scottish  infants  being  impaled  alive  on  tenterhooks,  a 
deed  which  was  sworn  to  before  Henry  Jones,  D.D.,  and 
Henry  Brereton  on  March  9,  1643,  by  Captain  Anthony 
Stratford  of  Charlemont,  we  cannot  wonder  that  the 
fathers  of  these  infants,  when  their  hour  of  victory  came, 
had  but  little  disposition  towards  mercy.  Nor  can  we 
wonder  that  the  Irish  women  and  children  were  not 
spared.  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Price,  whose  five  small  children 
were  all  murdered,  deposed  that  "  the  Irish  women  were 
fiercer  and  more  cruel  than  the  men."  Elizabeth  Croker 
swore  that  it  was  in  most  cases  the  Irish  women  who 
urged  on  the  men  to  their  worst  deeds.  Jane  Hamskin, 
we  know,  burned  twenty-four  alive  in  a  cottage.  The 
wife  of  Brian  Kelly  of  Loughgall  killed  forty-five  with 
her  own  hands.  The  children  apishly  copied  their  seniors' 
barbarities.  They  made  themselves  skeans  of  sharpened 
wood,  with  which  they  would  torture  and  hack  the  naked 
bodies  of  the  British  children.1  John  Beg  and  Brian 
O'Hara,  two  Co.  Tyrone  boys,  were  heard  to  boast 
that  they  had  killed  one  hundred  and  forty-five  women 
and  children  between  them.*  Another  Dungannon  boy 
named  Patrick  McCroo  killed  thirty-one  in  a  single  morning. 
Anne  Reeves's  son  Stephen,  aged  six,  was  set  upon  by  six 
Irish  boys,  all  under  eight  years  of  age,  who  first  put 
out  his  eyes  and  then,  with  sticks  and  stones,  battered  out 
his  brains.3  Yet  another  boy  of  under  fourteen  killed, 
with  a  skean,  fifteen  men  in  succession  whose  feet  were 
in  the  stocks.4  A  boy  was  heard  to  boast  that  his  arm 
was  so  wearied  with  hacking  and  stabbing  that  he  could 
hardly  lift  it.5  Coote's  remark  that  "  nits  become  lice," 

1  Examination  of  Mr.  Nicholas  Simpson.          3  Dep.  of  Anne  Read. 

2  Dep.  of  Captain  Stratford.  *  Dep.  of  Anne  Kennard. 
6  Dep.  of  Eleanor  Fullerton,  widow  of  the  minister  of  Loughgall. 

18 


256  THE  NUMBER  OF  VICTIMS     [CHAP,  xvin 

so  often  quoted  as  proof  of  his  callous  brutality  to 
some  Irish  children  in  Wexford,  was  provoked  by  the 
devilish  practices  of  the  "  nits "  themselves.  In  an 
Account  of  the  Bloody  Massacre  in  Ireland  1  we  are  told 
that  it  was  the  practice  of  the  Irish  to  put  out  the  eyes 
and  cut  off  the  hands  of  their  prisoners,  and  so  to  turn 
them  out  naked  into  the  fields.  This  may  be  untrue, 
for  the  statement  is  not  supported  by  any  reference, 
but  it  is  unquestionable  that  practices  equally  cruel  were 
freely  indulged  in,  especially  at  the  time  when  attempts 
were  being  made  to  get  rid  of  the  British  without  infring- 
ing the  letter  of  the  Multifarnham  edict  as  to  not  killing 
outright. 

When  the  flood-gates  of  human  vengeance  are  once 
opened  by  unprovoked  atrocities  such  as  these,  the  onus 
of  responsibility  for  all  the  horrors  that  ensue  must  rest 
on  the  shoulders  of  those  who  were  the  original  aggressors, 
nor  by  any  trick  of  crooked  reasoning  can  it  be  shifted 
from  those  shoulders.  The  Irish  were  the  first  to  dip  their 
hands  in  innocent  blood,  and  by  so  doing  forfeited  for 
ever  their  rights  of  complaint  against  the  inevitable 
retribution.  That  retribution  was  undoubtedly  brutal 
and  relentless,  and  was  responsible  for  many  acts  that 
can  only  be  regarded  by  modern  eyes  with  horror.  We 
get  far  fewer  details  of  the  retaliatory  massacres  by 
the  British  than  we  do  of  the  original  massacres  by  the 
Irish.  It  is  only  occasionally  that  by  chance  we  are 
allowed  a  glimpse  of  these  dreadful  tragedies.  In  the 
Despatch  of  an  Unknown  Officer  we  read  that  in  1642  a 
party  sent  out  from  Newry  into  the  Mourne  Mountains 
killed  500  Irish,  of  whom  90  per  cent,  were  women  and 
children.1  Another  party  sent  out  from  Dundalk — 
no  doubt  with  like  intent — was  less  successful,  for  the 
men  composing  it  got  so  scattered  among  the  mountains 
that  400  of  them  failed  to  return.  Sir  William  Cole 
again  reported  that  he  had  killed  295  of  the  Irish  in  Co. 
Fermanagh — mainly  Rory  Maguire's  people — in  revenge 
for  the  massacres  at  Lisgool  and  Tully.3  Such  incidents 
are  only  arrived  at  obliquely  through  private  correspon- 
dence, but  we  may  be  sure  that  they  occurred  in  many 
parts  of  the  country.  The  only  respect  in  which  they 

1  Coll.  of  Tracts,  British  Museum,  p.  4.  z  Pinkerton  MSS. 

3  "Vindication"  of  Sir  William  Cole. 


1642]      CROMWELL'S  POLICY  OF   BANISHMENT    257 

show  up  in  a  less  revolting  light  than  the  previous  massacres 
by  the  Irish  is  that  they  were  directed  against  presumptive 
murderers  instead  of  against  friendly  neighbours,  and 
that — as  far  as  we  know — they  were  entirely  free  from 
anything  in  the  shape  of  torture.  The  main  idea  was 
not  to  hurt,  but  to  exterminate.  For  this  gruesome 
expedient  there  was  some  justification  in  the  experience 
of  those  who  had  tried  the  other  alternative.  For  over 
thirty  years  the  British  colonists  had  tried  the  experiment 
of  living  among  the  native  Irish  as  neighbours  and  friends. 
So  friendly,  in  fact,  had  been  the  relations  between  the 
two  races  that  the  British  ceased  to  arm  themselves, 
or  to  take  any  precautions  for  the  defence  of  their  houses 
and  families.  The  Irish  had  taken  advantage  of  this 
confiding  attitude  to  fall  suddenly  upon  their  neighbours 
and  attempt  their  extermination.  The  lesson  which 
seemed  to  be  thus  taught  was  that  the  neighbourly  inter- 
course of  the  two  races  was  not  practicable,  and  that 
the  extermination  of  one  or  the  other  was  therefore  a 
necessity.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  was  the 
idea  which  governed  the  policy  of  the  British  up  to  the 
time  of  Oliver  Cromwell's  landing  in  Ireland.  Cromwell 
agreed  that — after  the  experience  of  1641 — it  was  im- 
possible for  the  two  races  to  live  intermingled,  but  he 
modified  the  policy  of  extermination  into  a  policy  of 
banishment.  The  natives  were  to  go  to  Connaught,  and 
leave  Ulster  free  for  the  colonists.  This  policy,  however, 
proved  unexpectedly  difficult  of  accomplishment,  and 
on  the  restoration  of  Charles  II  its  effect  was  to  a  great 
extent  neutralised  by  the  tendency  of  the  moment  towards 
a  reversal  of  every  act  or  edict  which  had  originated  with 
Cromwell.' 


PART    III 
THE  CIVIL  WARS  IN  ULSTER 


259 


CHAPTER  I 

THE   TURN   OF  THE   TIDE 

MONRO,  after  a  week  spent  at  Newry,  and  after  burning 
all  the  houses  in  the  town — an  apparently  foolish  pro- 
ceeding— retired  to  Carrickfergus  on  May  7,  leaving 
Colonel  Sinclair  and  300  men  in  the  Castle.  Sir  Charles 
Poyntz  was  placed  in  charge  of  Carlingford.  The  reasons 
put  forward  by  Monro  for  his  otherwise  unaccountable 
retirement  were  that  he  had  nothing  with  which  to  feed 
his  army.1  All  the  royalist  chroniclers,  to  whom  Robert 
Monro's  name  is  anathema,  criticise  him  very  severely 
for  his  premature  retirement  after  having  accomplished 
nothing  beyond  the  capture  of  Newry.  It  must,  however, 
in  common  fairness  be  pointed  out  that  Lord  Conway, 
who  accompanied  the  expedition  both  coming  and  going, 
was  in  supreme  command  by  virtue  of  his  position  as 
Marshal  of  Ireland,  and  that  the  responsibility  for  the 
early  return  of  the  column,  as  well  as  for  the  defective 
commissariat  which  made  it  necessary,  must  rest  on  his 
shoulders  and  on  his  alone.  Sir  James  Turner,  who  was 
a  member  of  the  force,  makes  this  very  clear  in  his  Memoirs. 
Conway,  however,  was  a  Royalist  and  therefore  immune 
from  criticism  by  Clarendon,  Carte  or  Nalson.  The  real 
trouble,  of  course,  was  that  the  force  was  several  times 
larger  than  was  necessary,  and  the  feeding  of  it  conse- 
quently became  impossible.  For  this  initial  mistake, 
again,  the  blame  must  rest  with  the  local  leaders,  who 
knew  the  country  and  its  requirements  far  better  than 
a  stranger  could. 

Although  scarcity  of  food  may  have  been  the  cause  of 
Monro's  retirement  to  Carrickfergus,  it  cannot  be  said 
with  truth  that  there  were  no  supplies  within  reach,  for 

»  Monro  to  Leslie,  May  15,  1642. 
261 


262  THE  TURN  OF  THE  TIDE  [CHAP,  i 

we  learn  that,  during  the  return,  great  quantities  of 
cattle  were  captured  and  driven  back  to  Carrickfergus. 
After  a  short  stay  in  that  town,  and  after  dispensing  with 
the  further  services  of  the  local  troops,  Monro  passed  on 
north  into  Antrim.  It  is  the  fashion  to  characterise 
Monro's  tour  of  Antrim  as  a  criminal  waste  of  time  and 
opportunity,  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  county  was 
urgently  in  need  of  relief,  as  is  made  very  clear  by  the 
extract  from  the  Rawdon  Papers  referred  to  in  the  pre- 
ceding chapter.  Up  to  June  1642  the  entire  country, 
with  the  exception  of  a  few  walled  strongholds,  had  been 
in  the  hands  of  the  Irish,  who,  upon  Monro's  advance, 
were  compelled  to  withdraw  across  the  Bann,  and  rid  the 
county  of  their  unwelcome  presence. 

Monro  started  his  aggressive  operations  by  burning 
Glenarm,  and  followed  that  up  by  burning  the  Dowager 
Lady  Antrim's  house  at  Ballycastle.  From  the  home 
of  the  mother  at  Ballycastle,  he  passed  on  to  the  far 
more  formidable  stronghold  of  the  son  at  Dunluce.  This 
famous  Castle  had  been  held  throughout  the  rebellion 
by  Captain  Digby,  partly,  it  would  seem,  on  behalf  of 
Antrim  and  partly  for  the  general  protection  of  the  British 
residents  in  the  neighbourhood.  Antrim  himself  had 
been  in  Dublin  at  the  outbreak  of  the  rising,  and  had  in 
fact  stayed  in  that  city  till  April,  when — having  definitely 
abandoned  his  original  idea  of  siding  with  the  Irish — 
he  set  out  to  look  after  his  own  in  the  north.  On  the 
journey  he  stayed  a  night  in  Armagh,  but  declined  the 
hospitality  of  his  sister  Alice  l  (the  wife  of  Tirlough  Oge, 
the  Governor),  preferring,  probably  for  political  reasons, 
to  sleep  at  the  Friary.  Next  day  he  made  a  long  ride  to 
Moneymore,  where  he  slept  the  night  at  Cormac  O'Hagan's 
house,  and  where  he  had  a  long  interview  with  Sir  Phelim.2 
After  leaving  Moneymore  he  crossed  the  Bann  and  rode 
to  the  rebel  camp  south  of  Coleraine.  On  his  arrival 
at  the  camp  he  found  that  Archibald  Stewart,  the  Governor 
of  the  place  since  Rowley's  death,  had  actually  accepted 
terms  of  surrender,  and  was  on  the  point  of  yielding  the 

1  Hill,  in  his  McDonnells  of  Antrim,  expresses  doubts  as  to  the  identity 
of  "  my  sister  Alice  "  and  suggests  that  she  may  have  been  the  wife  of  a 
Mr.  Crombie.  This  is  clearly  an  error.  Hill  was  evidently  in  ignorance 
of  the  fact  that  Tirlough  Oge,  the  Governor  of  Armagh,  was  married  to 
Antrim's  sister,  or  rather  his  half-sister. 

*  Information  of  the  Earl  of  Antrim.     See  also  Friar  O'Mellan. 


1642]  THE  EARL  OF  ANTRIM  263 

place  to  Alastair  McCoUkittagh  McDonnell.1  By  the 
exercise  of  the  claims  of  clanship,  or  possibly  by  asserting 
his  authority  as  chief  of  the  McDonnells,  Antrim  was  able 
to  persuade  his  kinsman  to  forgo  his  advantage,  and 
even  to  relax  in  some  part  the  severity  of  the  siege.8 
This  important  step  accomplished,  he  went  on  to  Dunluce, 
and,  on  April  28,  took  over  command  of  that  place  from 
Captain  Digby,  making  public  proclamation  at  the  same  time 
that  he  intended  thenceforward  to  hold  it  for  the  King.  As 
a  further  practical  illustration  of  the  complete  change  in 
his  political  attitude,  he  sent  the  famished  inmates  of 
Coleraine  a  present  of  one  hundred  cattle  and  fifty  loads  of 
corn. 

Even  in  his  reformed  character,  however,  Antrim  was 
a  man  whom  it  was  not  easy  to  trust,  and  Monro  did  not 
trust  him.  Even  Strafford,  who  had  been  linked  to  him 
by  the  common  bond  of  royalist  sympathies,  had  never 
trusted  him,  and  had  in  consequence  vigorously  opposed 
his  offer,  made  in  1639,  to  raise  and  arm  native  regiments 
for  service  against  the  Scottish  Covenanters,  reminding 
the  Council,  as  he  did  so,  that  Antrim's  mother  had  been 
a  daughter  of  Hugh  O'Neil  and  his  grandmother  a  sister 
of  Shane  O'Neil.3  Monro's  case  against  Antrim  was  that 
he  had  been  nominally  in  alliance  with  the  rebels  ;  that  his 
mother  was  reputed  to  have  been  responsible  for  many 
murders  of  British,  and  that  he  himself  was  avowedly  a 
Royalist  and  therefore  a  proclaimed  enemy  of  the  Parlia- 
ment whose  servant  he  (Monro)  was  ;  for  the  King  and 
the  Parliament  were  now  openly  at  war.4 

In  Ireland  there  was  still  nominal  cohesion  between 
the  royalist  British,  and  the  parliamentary  British,  who 
— though  cordially  disliking  one  another — were  of  necessity 
united  for  the  time  being  by  the  common  menace  of  the 
Irish  rising.  Antrim,  however,  was  not  British,  being 
half  Highland,  half  Irish  and  wholly  Roman  Catholic, 
a  combination  which — in  Monro's  opinion — justified  him 
in  arresting  the  Earl  in  spite  of  Antrim's  recent  services 
to  Coleraine.  Carte's  account  of  the  affair  is  that  Antrim 
hospitably  entertained  Monro  at  Dunluce  Castle,  and  was 
then  treacherously  made  prisoner  by  his  guest ;  and  the 

1  Aphorismical  Discovery,  p.  33. 

8  Information  of  Earl  of  Antrim. 

s  Strafford  to  Sir  Henry  Vane,  June  4.  1639. 

*  Carte,  vol.  i.  p.  418. 


264  THE   TURN   OF  THE  TIDE  [CHAP,  i 

Rev.  George  Hill,  as  in  duty  bound,  supports  this  statement 
in  his  McDonnells  of  Antrim.  We  have,  however,  the 
clearest  proof  that  this  statement  is  incorrect,  and  that  it 
was  merely  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  a  royalist  historian 
to  throw  discredit  on  a  parliamentary  General,  for  Carte 
himself,  in  a  private  letter  to  a  "  Member  of  the  House  of 
Commons  "  written  May  12,  1714,  contradicts  his  own 
statement  and  admits  that  Antrim  delivered  the  Castle 
to  Monro.1  This,  too,  is  Antrim's  own  version  of  the 
affair,  for,  in  his  account  of  his  journey  from  Dublin  to 
Dunluce,  he  mentions  the  plain  fact  that  Monro  arrested 
him,  but  makes  no  suggestion  of  any  treachery.  Mul- 
hollan's  version  is  that  Dunluce  was  surrendered  as  the 
result  of  a  siege. 

Antrim's  imprisonment,  as  events  turned  out,  did  not 
greatly  incommode  him,  for,  with  a  little  friendly  assist- 
ance from  inside,  he  soon  effected  his  escape  from  Carrick- 
fergus,  and,  after  some  adventures,  reached  Lord  Moore's 
house  at  Mellifont.* 

Monro  remained  nearly  two  months  at  Dunluce  doing 
nothing.  He  was,  in  point  of  fact,  debarred  from  making 
any  aggressive  movement  by  the  mutiny  of  his  troops 
and  the  shortage  of  food,  the  former  being  directly  oc- 
casioned by  the  latter.  The  county  of  Antrim,  on  which  he 
had  to  rely  for  his  supplies,  was  devastated  during  the 
summer  of  1642  by  a  famine,  which  Monro's  enemies 
suggested  was  in  part  brought  about  by  his  own  action 
in  shipping  so  many  of  the  Antrim  cattle  to  Scotland. 
Whatever  the  cause  may  have  been,  the  fact  remains  that 
the  north-eastern  county  of  Ulster  was  scourged  that 
summer  by  very  severe  famine  and  pestilence.  Twenty- 
five  hundred  died  in  and  around  Carrickfergus  in  four 
months.  Monro's  army  mutinied  and  refused  to  advance, 
and  the  Irish  were,  in  many  cases,  forced  into  eating  their 
own  dead.5 

With  Monro  lying  inactive  at  Dunluce,  the  care  of 
British  lives  in  north-west  Ulster  devolved  on  the  Lagan 
Force.  This  indefatigable  body  of  men  had,  since  the 
beginning  of  the  year,  been  acting  as  a  screen  protecting 
Newtownstewart,  Raphoe,  Derry  and  Inishowen  from  any 
attempt  on  the  part  of  Sir  Phelim  to  advance  his  forces 

1  Somers's  Tracts,  vol.  v.  p.  662.  *  Warr  of  Ireland. 

8  Hist.  Coll.,  relative  to  the  town  of  Belfast. 


1642]  THE  LAGAN  FORCE  265 

in  the  direction  of  the  north  coast.  The  immense  area 
which  relied  on  the  Lagan  Force  for  protection  called  for 
an  untiring  energy  on  the  part  of  the  three  regiments 
of  which  it  was  at  that  time  formed.1  During  the  last 
two  months  of  1641  the  duties  of  the  Force  had  been  mainly 
confined  to  convoying  troops  of  refugees  from  Ennis- 
killen  and  Ballyshannon  to  Derry,  and  to  guarding  Derry 
itself  from  any  danger  of  attack  by  Sir  Phelim.  During  the 
whole  of  this  period  the  city,  according  to  the  "Relation" 
of  Mr.  Lawson,  was  in  no  condition  to  defend  itself,  "  be- 
ing utterly  destitute  of  arms."  Early  in  1642,  however, 
the  position  became  much  improved.  The  Merchant 
Taylors',  Vintners',  Grocers',  and  Mercers'  Companies 
sent  the  city  fifteen  guns,  and  the  Lords  Justices  contri- 
buted thirty  barrels  of  powder  and  some  arms  from 
Dublin.2 

About  the  same  time  that  this  welcome  consignment 
of  arms  reached  Derry  the  first  real  concentration  of  the 
Lagan  Force  was  brought  about  in  the  manner  already 
described.  Sir  Ralph  Gore's  regiment,  after  having  been 
very  hard  pressed  in  central  Donegal,  was  rescued  by 
Sir  Robert  Stewart  and  brought  safely  to  Raphoe  at  the 
beginning  of  April  1642.  With  Gore's  regiment  had  come 
a  mass  of  British  refugees  from  the  barony  of  Boylagh  and 
Bannagh,  and  from  the  neighbouring  barony  of  Tirhugh. 
This  practically  cleared  Donegal  of  refugees,  and,  with 
their  disappearance,  there  ceased  to  be  the  same  need 
for  a  protective  force  operating  in  those  parts.  Gore's 
regiment  was  taken  over  by  Audley  Mervyn,  and  all  three 
regiments  were  thenceforward  concentrated  south  of  Derry 
with  a  view  to  forming  a  protective  barrier  between  Sir 
Phelim's  forces  and  the  multitude  of  British  colonists  who 
had  sought  sanctuary  on  the  shores  of  the  Foyle.  The 
reconstitution  of  the  force  and  the  shifting  of  its  respon- 
sibilities worked  out  satisfactorily  in  every  way.  The  Lagan 
Force  protected  Inishowen  and  the  Derry  district  and  Derry, 
in  return,  supplied  the  Lagan  Force  with  such  necessaries 
of  life  as  beef,  butter,  herrings  and  salmon  from  the  Foyle 
fisheries,  which  had  just  opened  their  season.  The  extra 
drain  on  the  resources  of  Derry  was  in  consequence  con- 
siderable, and  the  food  situation  in  the  city  itself  was 
becoming  critical,  when,  at  the  beginning  of  May,  two 

1  The  Lagan  Force  ultimately  mustered  five  regiments,          •  Reid. 


266  THE  TURN  OF  THE  TIDE  [CHAP,  i 

British  ships  arrived  with  provisions  and  six  barrels  of 
powder.1 

In  the  meanwhile  it  had  become  evident  to  Sir  Phelim 
that — unless  all  his  schemes  in  the  north  were  to  be  per- 
manently paralysed — the  Lagan  Force  must  be  crushed 
and  the  investment  of  Derry  essayed.  He  accordingly 
determined  to  stake  all  on  a  trial  of  strength,  and,  with 
this  end  in  view,  arrived  at  Strabane  on  May  17  at  the  head 
of  5,000  men.  Orders  were  sent  to  Alastair  McColl- 
kittagh  McDonnell  and  to  O'Cahan  to  abandon  for  the 
moment  the  siege  of  Coleraine  and  to  join  him,  with  all 
the  strength  they  could  raise,  in  the  supreme  effort  which 
he  had  in  contemplation.  The  two  Stewarts  were  not 
unaware  of  the  magnitude  of  Sir  Phelim' s  preparations, 
and — in  view  of  their  great  numerical  inferiority — they 
prevailed  on  Sir  John  Vaughan,  the  Governor  of  Derry, 
to  send  Captain  Pitt's  and  Captain  Lawson's  companies  to 
supplement  a  force  which  had  already  been  seriously 
depleted  by  the  necessity  for  providing  garrisons  for 
Donegal  Castle,  Roughan  Castle,  Newtownstewart  and 
Raphoe. 

The  decisive  battle  took  place  on  June  16  at  Glen- 
maquin  near  Raphoe,  and  resulted  in  the  complete  over- 
throw of  Sir  Phelim  and  his  formidable  army.  Audley 
Mervyn,  who  was  present  on  the  occasion,  speaks  in  the 
highest  terms  of  praise  of  the  conduct  of  the  Lagan  Force, 
mentioning  Lieutenants  Galbraith,  Corlase  and  Cornet 
Cathcart  as  having  particularly  distinguished  themselves. 
Sir  Phelim's  troops,  on  the  other  hand,  from  all  accounts, 
did  not  show  at  their  best.  "  Scarce  did  the  Irish  show 
their  faces  to  the  enemy  than  their  heels,"  writes  the 
author  of  the  Aphorismical  Discovery,  who  never  misses 
an  opportunity  of  saying  disagreeable  things  about  Sir 
Phelim.  Mulhollan,  however,  practically  corroborates 
the  above,  but  adds  a  redeeming  clause  with  regard  to 
Alastair  McCollkittagh,  who — undeterred  by  the  general 
stampede — attacked  the  British  force  almost  single-handed, 
but  was  at  once  shot.  Friar  O'Mellan,  who  was  either 
present  on  the  occasion  or  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood, 
endorses  the  version  given  by  the  other  two  writers,  for 
he  tells  us  that  "the  General  (presumably  Alastair  Mc- 
Collkittagh) cried  out  to  his  men,  but  all  hi  vain,  for  they 
1  Deny  Corporation  to  Monro. 


1642]  BATTLE  OF  GLENMAQUIN  267 

would  not  come  back  to  the  charge."  Alastair's  wound, 
though  serious,  did  not  prove  fatal,  and  he  was  removed 
from  the  field  of  battle  in  a  horse-litter.  He  subsequently 
served  with  much  distinction  under  Montrose  in  Scotland,1 
and  was  finally  killed  at  the  battle  of  Shrubhill  in  Munster, 
under  circumstances  which  strongly  recalled  the  battle 
of  Glenmaquin. 

Sir  Phelim's  defeat  was  absolute  and  irretrievable. 
Five  hundred  of  his  men  were  killed  in  the  pursuit  which 
followed  on  their  flight,  and  the  rest  were  hopelessly  dis- 
couraged. Sir  Phelim  himself  had  little  inclination,  even 
if  he  had  the  power,  to  attempt  further  hostilities  in  the 
open.  He  left  200  picked  men  to  garrison  Strabane,  and 
returned  himself  to  Charlemont,  where  he  shut  himself 
up  in  the  Castle  and  made  preparations  to  resist  the  siege 
which  he  knew  could  not  long  be  deferred.  The  Stewarts, 
however,  had  no  idea  of  leaving  Strabane  in  enemy  hands, 
and,  three  days  after  the  victory  of  Glenmaquin,  they 
carried  the  place  by  assault,  the  garrison  taking  to  its 
heels.  They  were,  however,  all  overtaken  and  killed, 
with  the  exception  of  Hugh  Devine,  the  commander,  who 
was  sent  as  a  prisoner  to  Derry.8 

Strabane,  after  its  capture,  was  left  in  the  joint  charge 
of  Captain  Wishaw  and  Sir  William  Hamilton  of  Done- 
managh,  the  last-named  of  whom  had — since  the  outbreak 
of  the  rising — changed  his  religion  and  become  a  Protestant, 
on  the  grounds,  as  he  put  it,  "  that  neither  faith,  civil 
conversation,  sound  loyalty  or  religion  can  be  expected 
where  such  bloody,  traitorous  and  inhuman  dealings 
are."  » 

In  addition  to  the  Strabane  garrison,  500  men  (appa- 
rently Sir  William  Stewart's  regiment)  were  left  to  guard 
the  Raphoe  district,  while  Sir  Robert  Stewart's  and  Mer- 
vyn's  regiments  crossed  the  Mourne  into  Co.  London- 
derry to  do  what  Monro  ought  to  have  been  doing,  viz. 
to  clear  that  county  of  the  force  which  had  for  so  long 
been  investing  Coleraine. 

The  Irish  forces  in  Co.  Londonderry  had  lost  their 
commander  in  Alastair  McCollkittagh,  and,  with  his  dis- 
appearance, the  command  had  devolved  on  Manus  O'Cahan, 
a  man  who  was  as  far  behind  McCollkittagh  as  a  soldier 

1  John  McDonnell's  Ulster  Civil  Wars.  •  Friar  O'Mellan. 

3  "  Relation  "  of  Audley  Mervyn. 


268  THE  TURN  OF  THE  TIDE  [CHAP,  i 

as  he  was  ahead  of  him  as  a  butcher  of  women  and  children. 
It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  uninterrupted  success  of 
the  Lagan  Force  in  Co.  Londonderry  was  due  in  some 
part  to  this  change.  Stewart  opened  proceedings  by 
relieving  Ballykelly,  and  shortly  afterwards  drove  the 
enemy  from  Limavady,  in  which  Captain  Philips  had  now 
been  shut  up  for  ten  weeks,  after  which  he  moved  on  to 
the  relief  of  Coleraine.  At  Magilligan,  Manus  O'Cahan 
made  an  attempt  to  bar  his  way  with  a  large  force  of 
O'Cahans,  O'Hagans,  O'Mullans  and  Antrim  McDonnells. 
In  the  encounter  which  followed  the  Lagan  Force  was  again 
victorious,  and  O'Cahan  was  forced  to  turn  tail  and  take 
refuge  with  all  his  forces  in  the  Sperrin  Mountains.  Into 
this  difficult  and  dangerous  country  Stewart  resolved 
to  pursue  his  adversaries  and  to  abandon  for  the  moment 
the  relief  of  Coleraine.  The  enterprise  was  a  hazardous 
one,  for  Stewart  had  only  two  regiments  with  him,  and 
the  wild  country  around  Dungiven  lent  itself  in  every  way 
to  defensive  operations.  O'Cahan  had  posted  his  force 
in  a  strong  position  on  the  northern  slope  of  the  hills,  and, 
in  order  that  the  spirit  of  his  men  should  not  be  inferior 
to  the  natural  advantages  of  the  ground,  he  made  them 
swear  upon  the  sacrament  to  fight  to  the  last  man.  In  the 
determined  mood  inspired  by  this  rite,  they  charged  so 
furiously  down  the  hill  upon  their  foe  that  the  Lagan  Force 
was  at  first  driven  back  in  some  disorder.  O'Cahan's 
advantage,  however,  was  but  momentary.  Stewart 
quickly  rallied  his  men,  and,  leading  them  once  more  to 
the  attack,  broke  the  Irish  ranks  and  captured  the  position. 
Eight  hundred,  we  are  given  to  understand,  were  killed. 
O'Cahan  himself  was  one  of  the  first  to  take  to  his  heels 
and  shut  himself  up  in  Dungiven  Castle.  Stewart — having 
first  secured  the  enemy's  cattle — followed  in  pursuit, 
and,  after  a  short  siege,  compelled  the  surrender  of  the 
place.  Manus  O'Cahan  was  taken  prisoner  and  sent  to 
Derry,  where  he  was  executed.  Irish  writers  maintain 
that  he  surrendered  upon  promise  of  quarter,  and  that  his 
execution  was  in  violation  of  this  pledge.  They  make 
the  same  assertion,  however,  in  regard  to  every  prominent 
Irishman  who  was  captured  during  the  ten  years'  war  and 
executed  after  capture,  in  many  cases  where  the  circum- 
stances themselves  are  sufficient  to  prove  the  accusation 
false.  In  any  event,  with  the  death  of  Manus  O'Cahan 


1642]         EXPLOITS   OF  THE   LAGAN  FORCE  269 

the  world  was  quit  of  a  very  cruel  and  cowardly  ruffian. 
At  the  outset  of  the  rising  Sir  John  Vaughan,  the  Governor 
of  Derry,  had  (very  unwisely  as  it  would  seem)  placed 
Manus  O'Cahan  in  charge  of  Dungiven  Castle.1  We  can 
only  guess  as  to  the  protestations  of  loyalty  which  O'Cahan 
must  have  made  before  such  an  important  trust  could  have 
been  conferred  upon  him,  but  we  know  that  he  took  the 
earliest  opportunity  of  betraying  the  Castle  into  Sir  Phelim's 
hands,  and  from  that  time  on  became  the  bloodiest  of  his 
butchers.  There  are  few  men  with  a  blacker  record  than 
Manus  O'Cahan. 

Driving  the  captured  cattle  before  him,  Stewart  next 
moved  down  to  the  Bann,  where  he  captured  Castle  Roe 
and — after  leaving  a  garrison  there — moved  on  to  Coleraine, 
which  was  thus  at  length  relieved  after  a  six  months'  siege, 
during  which  those  within  had  undergone  some  very 
terrible  experiences. 

Stewart's  mission  in  Co.  Londonderry  was  now 
accomplished,  and  he  lost  no  time  in  hurrying  back  with 
his  gallant  little  force  to  his  own  ground  on  the  west  side 
of  the  Foyle,  arriving  just  in  time  to  complete  the  dis- 
comfiture of  a  body  of  2,000  Irish,  who  were  hard  pressing 
Sir  William  Stewart  at  Raphoe. 

In  the  following  year  Colonel  Audley  Mervyn,  in  an 
address  to  the  House  of  Commons,  referred  to  the  achieve- 
ments of  the  Lagan  Force  as  having  been  of  a  very  extra- 
ordinary character.  His  claim  was  universally  admitted 
at  the  time  and  must  be  no  less  readily  admitted  after 
the  lapse  of  nearly  three  centuries.  Formed  almost 
entirely  from  among  the  British  farmers,  labourers  and 
artisans  of  Tyrone  and  east  Donegal,  and  officered  by  the 
landed  gentry  of  those  parts,  it  held  a  record  of  unvarying 
success  during  nine  long  years  of  continuous  fighting. 
For  the  greater  part  of  that  time  it  received  no  pay  of 
any  sort.2  It  had  to  contend  with  astonishing  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  ammunition  and  food  supplies,  and  in  most 
of  its  encounters  it  was  greatly  outnumbered.  At  Glen- 
maquin,  which,  up  to  the  date  of  the  battle  of  Clones, 
was  its  most  outstanding  victory,  it  was  certainly  out- 
numbered by  no  less  than  four  to  one.  It  had  the  best 
part  of  three  counties  to  defend,  and  yet,  so  faithfully 

1  Dep.  of  Peter  Carte. 

*  See  Mayor  of  Derry  to  Monro,  April  27,  1642. 


270  THE  TURN  OF  THE  TIDE  [CHAP.  I 

did  it  carry  out  its  self-imposed  task,  that  the  districts 
over  which  it  kept  watch  were  practically  immune  from 
the  red  foot-print  of  massacre  which  was  stamped  on 
the  rest  of  Ulster.  Audley  Mervyn's  tribute  was  paid 
after  eight  months  only  of  fighting,  and  although  those 
eight  months  were  unquestionably  the  most  important 
as  far  as  the  saving  of  life  was  concerned,  the  subsequent 
eight  years'  service  of  the  Lagan  Force  was  little  less 
remarkable  as  a  record  of  ceaseless  activity  and  of  invari- 
able success  in  the  field. 


CHAPTER  II 

BRITISH   RELIEF   FORCES    IN   ARMAGH   AND   TYRONE 

THE  brilliant  successes  of  the  Lagan  Force  in  Co.  London- 
derry had  the  effect  of  stimulating  Monro  into  a  sporadic 
display  of  activity.  Immediately  after  the  relief  of 
Coleraine,  having  succeeded  by  some  means  in  obtaining 
temporary  supplies  for  his  troops,  he  turned  his  back  on 
Dunluce  and  marched  south  along  the  east  shore  of  Lough 
Neagh,  where  he  was  joined  by  Lords  Conway,  Mont- 
gomery and  Clandeboye.  The  combined  forces  then 
visited  Armagh,  where  the  traces  of  the  recent  terrible 
massacre  were  still  visible,  and,  from  Armagh,  passed 
on  to  Kinard.  Here  Lord  Conway,  who  had  assumed 
command,  had  the  satisfaction  of  burning  Sir  Phelim's 
fine  freestone  house,  and  of  releasing  200  British  prisoners, 
whom  he  described  as  resembling  ghosts  rather  than  human 
beings.1  Lady  Caulfield  and  her  children  were  found  in 
a  stone  house  belonging  to  Mr.  Charles  Bolton  near  the 
Brantry  wood,  in  a  miserably  emaciated  condition,  but 
otherwise  uninjured.2  Great  efforts  were  made  to  find 
Lady  Blayney  and  her  children,  and,  to  this  end,  mounted 
patrols  were  sent  south  into  Co.  Monaghan.  As  far 
as  discovery  of  Lady  Blayney  was  concerned,  the  search 
was  unsuccessful,  but  it  was  not  altogether  barren  of 
results,  for  many  prisoners  were  discovered  and  brought 
back,  together  with  a  certain  number  of  cattle. 

The  capture  of  Kinard  was  quickly  followed  by  that  of 
Dungannon  under  rather  remarkable  circumstances.  Ever 
since  the  burning  of  Armagh,  Sir  William  Brownlow  had 
been  confined  as  a  prisoner  in  Dungannon  Castle.  News 
of  the  presence  of  the  British  at  Kinard  reached  him 
through  some  private  source,  and  he  resolved  on  a  bold 
stroke  for  liberty.  In  conjunction  with  Lieutenant 

1  A  "  Relation  "  from  Lord  Conway.  2  Dep.  of  Wm.  Skelton. 

19  271 


272  BRITISH  RELIEF  FORCES  [CHAP,  n 

Martin,  who  was  a  fellow-prisoner,  and  with  the  connivance 
of  three  members  of  the  garrison  named  McMahon,  McCann 
and  O'Quin,  he  managed  to  put  himself  in  temporary 
possession  of  the  Castle.  Captain  Codan,  the  Constable, 
was  secured  and  bound,  and  one  of  the  Irish  was  sent 
off  to  Kinard  to  inform  Lord  Conway  of  the  position. 
On  the  following  morning  Conway  himself  rode  over 
and  formally  took  possession  of  the  place.  Captain 
Codan  was  hanged  and  Captain  Theophilus  Jones  was 
left  in  charge  with  a  garrison  consisting  of  eighty  foot 
and  twenty  of  Rawdon's  Horse.1 

Sir  Phelim  himself  was  all  this  time  close  by  in  the 
House  of  the  Friars  at  Brantry,  whither  he  had  fled  upon 
Lord  Conway's  approach,  leaving  Nial  O'Neil  to  defend 
Charlemont.8  This  fortress  was  carefully  reconnoitred 
by  the  four  principal  British  commanders  with  a  view 
to  its  capture,  but,  after  a  close  inspection,  they  decided 
that  the  place  was  impregnable  with  the  resources  at  their 
command.  Charlemont,  in  fact,  was  the  last  place  in 
Ulster — with  a  solitary  exception  of  the  Castle  in  Lough 
Oughter — to  resist  capture,  and  for  over  eight  years 
remained  in  the  possession  of  the  Irish.  It  was  never 
seriously  attacked  till  its  final  capture  by  Coote  and 
Venables,  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  experts  of  the 
day  being  that  it  was  impregnable.  Its  peculiar  strength 
was  supposed  to  lie  in  the  fact  of  the  river  guarding  it 
on  one  side,  and  in  the  wide  extent  of  flat  swampy  ground 
by  which  it  was  surrounded,  which  made  it  unapproach- 
able by  field-pieces.  Coote  and  Venables,  however,  got 
their  field-pieces  up  to  within  fifty  yards  of  the  walls 
without  any  apparent  difficulty,  and  managed  in  time  to 
compel  a  surrender  which  one  can  hardly  doubt  might 
have  been  brought  about  some  years  earlier,  had  leaders 
of  equal  resolution  been  in  command. 

The  capture  of  Mount  joy  fort,  another  of  the  creations 
of  the  Deputy  of  that  name,  presented  none  of  the  diffi- 
culties associated  with  Charlemont.  On  June  26,  while 
Conway  was  at  Kinard,  Colonel  James  Clotworthy  (a 
brother  of  Sir  John)  put  out  from  Antrim  in  twelve  boats 
which  carried  400  men.  On  his  approaching  Mount  joy, 
Neil  Oge  O'Quin — famous  for  his  butcheries  at  Lissan 
and  Moneymore — evacuated  the  place  and  fled  with  all 

1  A  "Relation"  from  Lord  Conway,  2  Friar 


1642]      CLOTWORTHY  CAPTURES  MOUNTJOY         273 

his  men  into  the  adjoining  woods,  and  Clotworthy  landed 
unopposed.  Three  days  were  then  spent  by  Clotworthy 
in  repairing  the  fort,  and  on  the  29th  he  marched  out 
with  the  bulk  of  his  men  on  a  reconnoitring  expedition. 
The  moment  he  entered  the  woods,  Neil  Oge  O'Quin — 
according  to  the  custom  of  the  country — appeared  on 
his  flank  with  a  large  body  of  Irish,  who  marched  parallel 
with  the  column,  beating  drums  and  waving  colours, 
but  without  making  any  attempt  to  attack.  Wearying 
of  this  mountebank  display,  and  seeing  a  large  open  space 
ahead,  Clotworthy  sent  O'Quin  a  challenge  to  come  into 
the  open  and  fight  it  out.  Apparently  neither  side  had 
any  firearms.  O'Quin  promptly  accepted  the  challenge, 
but — though  Clotworthy  waited  a  long  while  in  the  open 
— neither  O'Quin  nor  any  of  his  men  put  in  an  appear- 
ance. As  soon,  however,  as  Clotworthy  started  marching 
home  again,  they  at  once  reappeared  on  his  flank,  as  before, 
with  much  noise  of  drums  and  waving  of  colours,  and  so 
accompanied  the  column  up  to  the  walls  of  Mount  joy.1 

On  the  following  day  Clotworthy  sent  out  his  twelve 
boats  under  Captain  Langford  and  Owen  O' Connelly,* 
who  since  his  adventures  in  Dublin  and  his  subsequent 
visit  to  London  had  definitely  joined  Sir  John  Clot  worthy's 
force.  These  two  sailed  round  into  the  mouth  of  the  Black- 
water,  and  there,  after  a  short  struggle,  succeeded  in 
capturing  the  whole  of  Sir  Phelim's  rival  fleet  of  boats.3 
For  some  months  past  the  Irish  leaders  had — with  con- 
siderable enterprise  and  energy — been  building  these  boats 
at  Charlemont  and  floating  them  down  the  Blackwater 
to  Lough  Neagh,  where  they  had  a  considerable  value 
for  purposes  of  transport.  They  were  no  less  valuable 
to  Clotworthy,  and  their  capture  was  only  second  in 
importance  to  that  of  Mount  joy. 

After  Manus  O'Cahan's  defeat  in  the  Sperrin  Mountains 
and  his  subsequent  capture  in  Dungiven  Castle,  his  army 
— having  now  in  quick  succession  lost  two  commanders 
— drifted  south  into  Co.  Tyrone.  On  June  29  Clot- 
worthy  received  word  through  a  spy  that  the  remnant 
of  this  army  was  at  Tullahogue,  and  he  resolved  to  lose 
no  time  in  attacking  it.  In  accordance  with  this  resolution, 

1  "Relation"  of  Col.  Clotworthy.  2  Hibernia  Anglicana. 

3  Warr  of  Ireland.  The  author  of  Aphorismical  Discovery  says  that 
Sir  Phelim  had  previously  captured  several  of  Clotworthy's  boats. 


274  BRITISH  RELIEF  FORCES  [CHAP,  n 

he  set  out  on  July  1  for  Tullahogue  with  as  many  of  his 
men  as  he  could  spare  from  the  garrison.  The  Irish,  at 
sight  of  the  Mount  joy  force,  began  withdrawing  again 
towards  the  north,  and  Clotworthy,  foreseeing  that  there 
might  be  great  delay  and  difficulty  in  bringing  on  an 
encounter,  had  recourse  to  a  ruse.  He  made  his  men 
strip  to  their  shirts  and  otherwise  disguise  themselves  as 
Irish,  and — having  by  this  device  got  within  striking 
distance — he  suddenly  gave  the  word  to  attack.  Taken 
completely  by  surprise,  the  Irish  made  no  attempt  to 
stand,  but  took  to  their  heels  with  such  good  will  that  it 
does  not  appear  that  many  came  to  any  harm.  The 
pursuit,  however,  was  continued  as  far  as  Moneymore, 
where  Clotworthy  released  120  British  prisoners,  for  the 
most  part  carpenters,  smiths  and  forge-men,  whom 
Cormac  O'Hagan  had  continued  to  employ  at  Sir  Thomas 
Staples'  iron  works.  Cormac  O'Hagan's  house  was  burned 
after  all  the  Clotworthys'  valuables,  with  which  it  was 
packed,  had  been  first  removed.  A  systematic  drive  of 
the  whole  country  between  Moneymore  and  Mount  joy 
was  then  organised,  which  resulted  in  the  capture  of  100 
cattle  and  in  the  release  of  380  more  British  prisoners. 
The  total  of  500  prisoners,  which  Clotworthy  claims  to 
have  rescued,  is  probably  an  exaggeration,  intended  to 
magnify  the  importance  of  his  services,  but  that  he  did 
effect  the  rescue  of  a  considerable  number  is  borne  out 
by  the  author  of  Warr  of  Ireland. 


CHAPTER    III 

THE    LANDING    OF    OWEN    ROE 

ONE  of  the  most  remarkable  circumstances  in  connection 
with  the  rebellion  which  started  with  the  native  rising 
of  1641  was  its  duration.  By  midsummer  1642  it  might 
not  unreasonably  have  been  claimed  that  the  rebellion 
was  utterly  suppressed.  Since  Alastair  McCollkittagh's 
victory  at  Bundooragh,  the  Irish  had  sustained  defeat 
after  defeat.  In  the  south,  Ormonde,  Tichborne  and 
Coote,  in  their  respective  districts,  had  been  no  less  uni- 
formly successful  than  had  been  the  Stewarts,  Montgomery 
and  Monro  in  the  north.  Ormonde — after  a  long  series 
of  minor  successes — had  met  and  completely  routed  an 
army  of  4,000  Irish  under  Colonel  Byrne,  Roger  Moore 
and  Lord  Mountgarret  (a  grandson  of  Tyrone)  at  Kilrush 
on  April  15.  Three  weeks  after  Kilrush,  Coote  in  his 
turn  registered  an  almost  equally  decisive  victory  at  Trim, 
in  the  course  of  which  he  himself,  however,  was  shot  through 
the  head  and  killed.  These  reverses  in  the  south  were 
followed  by  Sir  Phelim's  complete  overthrow  at  Glen- 
maquin,  and  by  the  subsequent  defeat  of  Manus  O'Cahan's 
army  by  the  Lagan  Force.  Sir  Phelim  himself  was  shut 
up  in  Charlemont ;  he  had  no  army  left  with  which  to 
take  the  field  ;  Alastair  McCollkittagh,  his  best  military 
leader,  was  incapacitated  by  wounds  from  taking  any 
part  in  the  campaign,  and  all  the  principal  strongholds 
in  Ulster — with  the  exception  of  Charlemont  and  Lough 
Oughter  Castle — were  in  the  hands  of  the  British.  In 
such  a  combination  of  favourable  circumstances,  it  would 
seem  as  though  a  simultaneous  advance  by  Ormonde, 
Monro,  and  the  Lagan  Force  was  all  that  was  needed  to 
sweep  the  country  bare  of  every  rebel  element.  It  was, 
however,  in  the  apparent  simplicity  of  the  situation  that 
its  real  difficulties  lay.  An  advance  of  the  British  would 

275 


276  THE  LANDING  OF  OWEN  ROE      [CHAP,  in 

have  achieved  nothing,  for  there  was  no  Irish  army  in 
the  field  to  oppose  them,  and  therefore  no  victory  to  be 
gained  except  by  the  capture  of  Charlemont.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  country  was  effectually  denuded  of  supplies. 
Protracted  operations  in  the  field  were  an  impossibility 
for  any  force  large  enough  to  ensure  success.  The 
only  operation  which  pressed  was  the  investment  of 
Charlemont,  and  this  was  admittedly  a  formidable  under- 
taking, calling  for  regular  supplies  and  proper  siege  equip- 
ment. For  such  an  undertaking  there  was  no  enthusiasm 
either  among  leaders  or  men.  Monro's  army  had  received 
no  pay  since  it  landed.1  The  Lagan  Force  had  been 
even  longer  without  pay.*  The  Newry  garrison,  which 
was  part  of  Monro's  force,  was  not  only  without  pay, 
but  very  nearly  without  food.*  "  They  were  reduced  to 
such  misery,"  Carte  writes,  "  by  the  want  of  money, 
clothes,  ammunition  and  victuals  that  it  was  a  wonder 
how  they  kept  from  disbanding."  *  The  Pale  army,  if 
we  can  believe  Carte's  description,  was  in  a  worse  con- 
dition even  than  the  northern  forces.  In  the  case  of  the 
Pale,  no  less  than  of  the  northern  armies,  it  was  the 
clothing  problem  which  presented  the  greatest  difficulties 
in  the  way  of  an  advance.  The  postponement  of  pay 
could  be  endured,  food  supplies  might  by  luck  or  by 
chance  have  been  found  by  any  expeditionary  force,  but 
clothing  and  boots  were  by  no  means  procurable  except 
from  England,  and  England  was  not,  at  the  moment,  in 
a  position  to  furnish  either.  Although  Edgehill,  the  first 
battle  of  the  war  between  King  and  Parliament,  was  still 
three  months  distant,  all  the  energies  and  all  the  money 
resources  of  both  parties  were  being  strained  to  the  utmost 
to  ensure  victory  in  the  armed  encounter,  which  all  fore- 
saw could  not  be  long  delayed.  In  the  face  of  so  imminent 
a  crisis  at  home,  affairs  in  Ireland  assumed  a  very  secondary 
importance,  and  the  forces  which  had  been  so  hastily 
commissioned  in  the  hour  of  acute  danger  were  left  to 
shift  for  themselves.  In  the  absence  of  direct  instructions 
to  the  contrary  from  some  recognised  authority,  these  forces, 
not  unnaturally,  remained  inactive.  The  pressing  need 
for  their  activities  was  passed.  Operations  in  the  field 
entailed  many  hardships  and  privations  from  which  they 

1  Reid.  3  Memoirs  of  Sir  James  Turner. 

2  Mayor  of  Deny  to  Monro.  *  Life  ofjOrmonde,  vol.  i.  p.  350. 


1642]  OWEN  ROE'S  PARENTAGE  277 

were,  for  the  moment,  immune,  and  which  were  not  to  be 
hastily  incurred  except  under  direct  orders.  Such  orders 
were  not  forthcoming,  nor  could  any  man  tell  with  certainty 
in  what  direction  to  look  for  his  instructions.  The  exe- 
cutive in  Ireland  was  divided  and  was,  at  the  moment, 
more  concerned  with  party  politics  than  with  the  suppression 
of  the  rebellion.  The  English  Parliament  was,  beyond 
any  shadow  of  doubt,  honestly  desirous  of  a  prosecution 
of  the  war  against  the  Irish,  though  incapacitated  for 
the  moment  from  furnishing  the  sinews  thereof.  It  is 
to  be  doubted  whether  the  King  and  the  royalist  party 
were  equally  enthusiastic  on  the  subject.  It  seems  far 
from  improbable  that  at  this  period — with  war  in  England 
imminent  and  with  the  passing  of  the  immediate  danger 
to  the  British  colony  in  Ireland — the  minds  of  Ormonde 
and  of  the  King  had  once  more  reverted  to  the  possibility 
of  enlisting  the  services  of  the  Irish  against  the  Puritan 
menace. 

All  these  causes  combined  to  produce  a  temporary 
paralysis  of  armed  activity  in  Ulster,  and,  while  men 
looked  on  in  hesitation,  wondering  who  was  their  pay- 
master, and  which  of  the  two  great  parties  in  England 
was  destined  to  gain  the  ascendancy,  the  entire  political 
outlook  was  revolutionised  by  the  landing  in  Lough  Swilly 
on  July  15  of  Owen  Me  Art  O'Neil,  better  known  as  Owen 
Roe. 

This  remarkable  man  was  the  son  of  Art  McBaron, 
who  was  the  elder,  but  illegitimate,  brother  of  Hugh, 
Earl  of  Tyrone.  Art  McBaron  himself  had  been  a  man  of 
few  attainments,  but  his  sons  were  more  celebrated,  and 
justly  so.  Of  these,  the  best  known — with  the  exception 
of  Owen  Roe — had  been  Brian  McArt.  Brian,  like  his  father 
before  him,  was  illegitimate,  and,  having  no  landed 
possessions  of  his  own,  took  early  steps  to  rectify  this  by 
usurping  those  of  others  with  considerable  success.  Chiches- 
ter  gave  him  the  character  of  being  the  most  able  man  in 
Ulster  at  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century,  and  with  a 
stronger  following  even  than  Tyrone.1  Brian  was  finally 
executed  in  1607  for  murdering  a  kinsman  of  his  in  the  house 
of  Tirlough  McHenry  of  the  Fews,  during  a  drunken  brawl.1 
He  must  have  been"at  least  I  twenty  I  years  (older  than  Owen 

1  Chichester  to  Privy  Council,  August  1607. 

*  Earl  of  Tyrone's  Articles,  Gal.  State  Papers,  James,  p.  502. 


278  THE  LANDING  OF  OWEN  ROE     [CHAP,  in 

Roe,  and  probably  by  a  different  mother.  The  latter,  as  a 
small  boy,  had  left  the  country  with  Tyrone  in  1607,  and 
had  served  for  the  greater  part  of  his  life  in  the  Spanish 
Army.  He  was  considered  by  many  to  have  the  first 
claim  to  the  banned  title  of  O'Neil,  by  virtue  of  his  direct 
descent  from  Con  Bacagh,  but  this  view  was  not  shared 
by  Sir  Phelim,  who,  as  the  great-great-grandson  of  Shane 
O'Neil,  considered  his  own  claims  to  be  the  stronger. 

Although  there  might  be  some  difference  of  opinion  as 
to  which  of  the  two  had  the  prior  claim  to  be  called  O'Neil, 
there  could  be  absolutely  none  as  to  which  was  the  better 
military  commander,  and  the  better  man  generally. 
Owen  Roe  was  not  officially  appointed  Commander-in- 
Chief  in  Ulster  till  October,  but  he  was  tacitly  recognised 
as  the  leader  by  the  entire  population  of  Ulster  from  the 
moment  of  his  landing.  From  Dogh  Castle,  where  he 
had  rested  for  a  few  days,  he  moved  to  Charlemont,  where, 
as  one  of  his  first  acts,  he  held  an  inquiry  into  the  methods 
employed  by  the  rebels  since  the  commencement  of  the 
rising,  nine  months  earlier.  On  learning  of  the  whole- 
sale atrocities  that  had  been  committed,  he  expressed  the 
utmost  horror  and  repugnance.  He  ordered  all  such 
British  prisoners  as  had  escaped  Lord  Conway's  search 
to  be  sent  at  once  to  Dundalk,  and  threatened  that,  if 
there  was  any  attempt  to  repeat  the  atrocities  of  the  past 
nine  months,  he  would  join  the  British.  As  a  practical 
mark  of  his  displeasure,  he  at  once  burned  a  number  of 
houses  around  Kinard  belonging  to  Sir  Phelim's  more 
notorious  cut-throats.1  Sir  Phelim  himself  seems  to  have 
come  in  for  a  fair  share  of  Owen  Roe's  indignation — an 
affront  which  the  deposed  Ulster  leader  had  to  swallow 
at  the  time,  but  which  he  never  forgave.  From  that 
time  on  there  was  a  bitter  hatred  between  the  two  members 
of  the  O'Neil  family. 

Sir  Phelim  was  by  no  means  the  only  enemy  that 
Owen  Roe  succeeded  in  making  at  the  outset  of  his  career 
as  Commander-in-Chief.  He  had  been  elected  to  the 
supreme  command  on  account  of  his  birth,  his  foreign 
reputation  and  experience,  and  also  on  account  of  the 
intense  interest  which  he  had  shown  from  very  early 
days  (long  before  Sir  Phelim  had  been  admitted  to  the 
secret)  in  the  question  of  a  native  rising.  He  also  acquired 

1  Dep.  of  Elizabeth  Price. 


1642]        OWEN  ROE'S  MILITARY  QUALITIES          279 

an  immediate  importance  on  account  of  the  arms,  ammuni- 
tion and  money  with  which  he  had  come  provided.  How- 
ever, in  spite  of  the  position  to  which  he  was  voted,  he 
never  succeeded  in  achieving  popularity  with  his  fellow- 
countrymen.  Burning  with  political  ardour  and  with 
religious  enthusiasm,  he  had  landed  in  Ireland  full  of 
high  resolves  for  the  welfare  of  a  native  country  which 
he  only  dimly  remembered.  He  had  dreamed  of  leading 
heroic  bands  of  warriors  against  the  usurping  Saxons,  and 
of  driving  them  by  shock  of  arms  from  Ireland's  shores. 
His  disillusionment  on  landing  was  instantaneous  and 
thorough.  In  place  of  warriors  he  found  assassins,  and 
in  place  of  high-souled  patriotism  mere  sordid  avarice. 
Of  what  his  temperament  had  been  in  other  countries 
we  know  little,  but  we  know  that,  from  the  moment  of 
his  landing  in  Ireland,  he  became  morose  and  taciturn.1 
Rinuccini  described  him  as  "  brooding,  silent  and  reserved." 
His  handsome  features  2  took  on  a  pensive  and  even  melan- 
choly look,  born  no  doubt  of  some  premonition  of  his 
impending  failure.  For  a  failure  he  must  be  admitted, 
in  spite  of  his  one  great  victory  at  Benburb.  To  those 
who  study  him  analytically  he  was  a  disappointment, 
and  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  he  was  a  bitter  dis- 
appointment to  himself.  He  had  the  essentials  of  a 
great  and  successful  commander.  Carte  says  of  him : 
"  He  was  a  man  of  great  experience  and  of  consummate 
skill  in  military  affairs.  Quick  in  spying,  and  diligent 
in  improving  any  advantage  offered  him  by  the  enemy, 
and  infinitely  careful  to  give  the  enemy  no  advantage 
over  himself."  From  the  purely  military  point  of  view, 
it  would  be  hard  to  frame  higher  terms  of  praise.  In 
the  words  of  Carte's  description  lies  all  that  men  seek 
for  in  their  greatest  generals.  Beyond  this,  he  was 
reputed  to  be  a  man  of  unswerving  integrity,  never  known 
to  break  his  word  even  in  trifles.  "  I  am  so  unalterably 
constant  and  steadfast  in  my  resolutions  and  ways," 
he  wrote  to  Monro  in  August  1649,  "  that,  where  my 
promise  or  parole  is  once  really  engaged,  I  would  rather 
die  a  thousand  times  than  one  inch  to  decline  or  deviate 
from  the  same."  J 

1  Aphorismical  Discovery. 

3  See  portrait  in  Ulster  Journal  of  Archceology. 

3  Owen  Roe  to  Monro,  August  22,  1649. 


280  THE  LANDING  OF  OWEN  ROE        [CHAP,  m 

The  arrival  of  Owen  Roe  and  his  staff  in  Ulster  meant 
that  the  Irish  cause  had  at  length  an  able  and  experienced 
commander  at  its  head,  backed  up  by  many  well-tried 
subordinate  leaders.  It  meant,  however,  something  more 
than  this.  The  ship  which  conveyed  Owen  Roe  brought 
also  an  abundance  of  arms,  ammunition  and  money — 
the  first  substantial  proof  of  continental  sympathy  with 
the  Irish  struggle  against  English  interests.  This  was 
only  the  forerunner  of  many  similar  consignments  sent 
over  from  the  Continent  during  the  course  of  the  next 
few  years.  At  no  time,  after  the  middle  of  1642,  had  the 
Irish  cause  to  complain  of  any  lack  of  money  or  of  war 
material.  Richelieu  was  generous,  and  Spain  and  the 
Vatican  were  but  little  behind  Richelieu  in  a  desire  to 
help  the  Catholic  cause  with  everything  needful  to  a 
successful  campaign.  In  the  confused  triangular  fight 
between  Royalists,  Parliamentarians  and  Irish,  which  for 
ten  years  to  come  was  destined  to  drain  the  life-blood 
of  both  natives  and  British  in  Ireland,  incomparably  the 
richest  party,  up  to  the  time  of  the  landing  of  Cromwell, 
was  the  Irish  party.  Owen  Roe,  however,  was  only  an 
occasional  participator  in  the  continuous  subsidies  with 
which  it  was  fed.  The  dislike  and  distrust  of  the  Supreme 
Council  at  Kilkenny  from  the  very  first  crippled  the  Ulster 
leader's  powers  and  paralysed  his  schemes.  To  this  sus- 
tained hostility  on  the  part  of  the  executive  body  of  the 
Confederate  Catholics,  and  to  his  own  persistent  ill- 
health,  must  be  attributed  Owen  Roe's  failure. 

In  addition  to  the  ship  which  landed  him  in  Donegal, 
a  second  ship  was  sent  round  to  Wexford  with  a  supple- 
mentary consignment  of  money,  arms  and  veteran  leaders. 
Yet  another  ship  had  preceded  him  to  Killibegs,  which  ship 
also  carried  a  heavy  cargo  of  ammunition  and  war  material 

-"  as  much,"  wrote  Owen  Roe,  "  as  I  deemed  needful  to 
answer  the  necessities  of  this  country."  l 

1  Owen  Roe  to  Brian  Maguire,  July  18,  1642. 


CHAPTER    IV 

GENERAL   HOSTILITY   TO    OWEN   ROE 

THE  great  things  which  had  been  expected  of  Owen 
Roe  did  not  immediately  follow  upon  his  arrival.  The 
better  part  of  a  year  was  allowed  to  elapse  after  his  landing 
before  he  assumed  anything  in  the  nature  of  a  warlike 
attitude.  The  delay  does  not  seem  to  have  been  due  to 
lack  of  enterprise  on  the  part  of  Owen  Roe  so  much  as 
to  the  absence  of  an  adequate  army  at  his  back.  Many 
members  of  the  Ulster  forces  that  had  fared  so  disastrously 
under  Sir  Phelim's  leadership  had  dispersed  to  their 
homes,  and  were  by  no  means  too  eager  to  renew  a  cam- 
paign of  which  they  still  held  unpleasant  memories. 
Owen  Roe  had  brought  with  him  skilled  commanders 
and  war  material  in  plenty,  but  he  was  entirely  dependent 
on  the  country  for  his  rank  and  file,  and  he  was  too  ex- 
perienced a  leader  to  fall  into  the  error  of  taking  the  field 
before  he  had  these  in  proper  military  trim.  He  had  in 
a  measure  contributed  to  his  own  unpreparedness  by 
sending  one  of  his  Spanish  ammunition  ships  to  Wexford. 
This  generous  act,  as  events  turned  out,  operated  very 
adversely,  not  only  to  Owen  Roe's  personal  interests 
but  to  his  patriotic  aims,  for  the  contents  of  the  Wexford 
ships  were  seized  upon  by  the  Irish  Executive  at  Kilkenny 
and  very  unfairly  detained  for  the  benefit  of  the  Leinster 
army.  This  had  no  doubt  been  Owen  Roe's  intention 
when  he  sent  the  ship  to  Wexford,  but  he  had  no  reason 
to  anticipate  at  that  time  that  the  Leinster  army  would 
not  only  fail  to  co-operate  with  him,  but  would  actually 
prove  hostile  to  the  main  objects  for  which  he  had  come 
to  Ireland.  The  detention  of  the  war  material  carried  on 
the  Wexford  ship  was  the  first  indication  of  the  threatened 
hostility  of  the  Supreme  Council  to  Owen  Roe's  schemes. 
It  was  an  obviously  hostile  act,  because  the  Kilkenny 

281 


282    GENERAL  HOSTILITY  TO  OWEN  ROE  [CHAP,  iv 

Executive  (which  was  in  fact  the  controlling  Irish  Executive 
for  all  four  provinces)  was  already  fully  provided  with 
all  the  war  material  it  required — a  fact  of  which  Owen 
Roe  had  no  knowledge  when  he  sent  one  of  his  ships  to  a 
Leinster  harbour. 

During  the  third  week  in  September  Colonel  Thomas 
Preston,  a  brother  of  Lord  Gormanston,  had  sailed  into 
Wexford  harbour  with  seven  transport  ships  from  Dunkirk 
escorted  by  three  French  men-of-war.  According  to 
Carte,  five  similar  transports  from  Nantes  had  preceded 
Preston,  and  seven  others  from  Rochelle  and  St.  Malo 
followed  him,  making  a  total  of  nineteen  transports 
carrying  men  and  war  material  for  the  Irish.  Further 
supplies  for  the  use  of  the  Kilkenny  Executive  were 
obtained  by  the  seizure  of  several  English  provision  ships 
bound  for  Dublin.  Preston  brought  with  him  five  hundred 
officers,  some  big  guns,  vast  stores  of  ammunition,  and 
several  thousand  Irish  soldiers  whom  Richelieu  had 
released  from  service  in  France  in  order  that  they  might 
fight  the  British  in  their  own  country.  The  Cardinal 
supplemented  this  friendly  act  by  an  undertaking  to 
finance  the  Irish  cause  up  to  a  million  crowns.1 

On  October  20  two  more  ship-loads  consigned  to  the 
Supreme  Council  at  Kilkenny  arrived  from  Italy ;  of  these 
one  discharged  its  cargo  at  Wexford  and  the  other  at  Dun- 
garvan.  These  two  ships  brought  from  the  Pope  four 
cannon,  four  thousand  muskets,  great  stores  of  ammuni- 
tion, and  £3,000  in  cash.8 

On  learning  of  the  arrival  of  these  two  successive  con- 
signments of  war  material  at  the  Irish  headquarters, 
Owen  Roe  hurried  south  to  Kilkenny  with  a  view 
to  putting  in  an  application  for  a  reasonable  share 
of  the  arms  and  money  received,  or  at  any  rate 
for  a  return  of  the  contents  of  the  ship  which  he 
himself  had  sent  to  Wexford.  His  application  was  not 
favourably  received.  Preston  opposed  it  on  the  grounds 
that  the  needs  of  Leinster  were  at  the  moment  far  greater 
than  those  of  Ulster,  and  Preston,  as  the  provider  of  the 
supplies  from  France,  was  the  popular  favourite  at  the 
moment.  All  that  Owen  Roe  could  extract  from  the 
Supreme  Council  was  a  grant  of  a  thousand  muskets,  which 
left  him  very  sorely  dissatisfied,  and  which  did  nothing  to 

1  Carte,  vol.  i.  p.  367.  *  Aphoriamical  Disc.,  p.  49. 


1642]  THE   SUPREME   COUNCIL  283 

increase  the  love  between  him  and  Preston.  Sir  Phelim, 
who  was  at  Kilkenny  at  the  time,  seeing — as  he  thought — 
in  the  action  of  the  Supreme  Council  unmistakable  signs 
of  Preston's  ascendancy,  and  of  the  corresponding  down- 
fall of  Owen  Roe,  seized  the  opportunity  to  marry  the 
former's  daughter. 

The  Supreme  Council  of  Confederate  Catholics  which 
from  this  time  on  controlled  the  movements  of  the  Irish 
armies  had  its  headquarters  at  Kilkenny  and  was  composed 
of  three  delegates  from  each  province.  Lord  Mountgarret 
was  its  first  President,  but  his  presence  was  dispensed  with 
on  account  of  his  age  (he  was  over  seventy)  and  the  first 
official  meeting  at  Kilkenny  on  October  24,  1642,  was 
held  under  the  Presidency  of  Mr.  Nicolas  Plunkett. 
The  Supreme  Council,  from  its  very  nature  as  the 
depository  for  all  money  and  war  material  from  the 
Continent,  was  always  in  a  position  to  enforce  its  edicts 
upon  such  as  proved  obstinate,  even  though  such  edicts 
might  not  be  wholly  in  the  national  interests.  Its  surface 
policy  in  fact  was  not  in  its  own  keeping.  The  sinews  of 
war  so  lavishly  supplied  by  Richelieu,  Spain  and  the 
Vatican  were  provided  in  the  name  and  for  the  ends  of  the 
Holy  Roman  Church,  and  religion  was  therefore  of  necessity 
placarded  in  large  type  in  the  forefront  of  the  Supreme 
Council  propaganda.  The  arrival,  in  fact,  of  Preston  with 
his  fleet  of  transports  opened  a  wholly  new  chapter  in  the 
history  of  the  Irish  revolt  against  British  institutions. 
With  the  money  and  the  arms  and  ammunition,  the  control 
passed  out  of  the  hands  of  the  native  Irish  into  those  of 
the  Anglo-Irish  gentry  of  the  Pale,  or  the  "  Old  English  " 
as  they  were  popularly  called,  and  with  the  change  of  control 
came  a  change  of  programme.  The  original  idea  of  the 
extinction  of  the  Ulster  colonists,  the  cancellation  of  the 
Plantation  grants,  and  a  general  reversion  to  the  status  in 
quo-  ante  was  viewed  with  little  favour  by  the  Leinster 
Roman  Catholic  gentry.  This  is  even  an  understatement 
of  the  case.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  reversal  of  the 
Plantation  grants,  at  which  the  leaders  of  the  native  Irish 
party  aimed  before  all  else,  was  very  greatly  dreaded  by  all 
the  Old  English,  including  the  Lords  and  gentry  of  the  Pale, 
who  were  themselves  in  every  case  alien  usurpers,  if  in- 
vestigation was  allowed  to  go  far  enough  back.  If  the 
process  of  dispossessing  foreign  colonists  was  once  set  in 


284    GENERAL  HOSTILITY  TO  OWEN  ROE    [CHAP,  iv 

motion^  it  was  a  foregone  conclusion  that  the  Old  English 
would  quickly  follow  in  the  wake  of  the  more  recent  Ulster 
settlers.  The  proclaimed  aims  of  the  native  Irish  left  no 
room  for  doubt  on  this  score  : 

"  No  English,  this  programme  announced,,  should  ever 
set  foot  in  Ireland  again."  1 

"  Even  the  very  language  must  be  forgotten  ;  none  to 
speak  English  under  a  penalty."  * 

"  Not  an  English  beast,  or  any  of  that  breed  must  be 
left  in  the  Kingdom."  J 

"  The  English  tongue  should  not  be  spoken,  and  all 
English  names  given  to  towns,  etc.,  should  be  abolished  and 
the  ancient  Irish  names  restored."  4 

When  this  preliminary  programme  had  been  carried  through 
England  was  to  be  invaded  and  conquered,  and  degraded 
to  the  status  of  an  Irish  province.5  A  programme  such  as 
the  above  could  only  flourish  in  an  atmosphere  of  very 
great  ignorance,  and  it  did  not  long  survive  Monro's  land- 
ing at  Carrickfergus.  By  that  time  the  credulous  country 
people  had  been  partially  disillusioned.  Contrary  to  their 
expectations,  and  contrary  to  the  sanguine  predictions  of 
Sir  Phelim  and  his  colleagues,  the  British  element  in  Ire- 
land had  not  been  extinguished.  Many  thousands  of 
innocent  people — chiefly  women  and  children — had  been 
done  to  death,  but  the  men  of  British  race,  so  far  from 
being  exterminated,  or  even  subjugated,  had  banded 
together  and  inflicted  a  series  of  humiliating  defeats  on 
the  would-be  conquerors  of  England.  It  became  apparent, 
even  to  the  most  obsessed,  that  the  Pan-Irish  idea  could 
no  longer  be  successfully  exploited.  The  only  possible 
hope  of  realising  the  national  dreams  lay  in  the  monetary 
help,  and  possibly  in  the  armed  intervention,  of  the  Con- 
tinental Powers,  and  the  only  recognised  channel  for  the 
influx  of  these  succours  was  the  Supreme  Council. 

The  immediate  and  most  important  effect  of  these  un- 
foreseen developments  was  that  Owen  Roe — in  place  of 
being  the  recognised  leader  of  a  great  national  movement 
— was  relegated  to  the  position  of  a  subsidiary  ally,  practi- 
cally under  the  orders  of  a  section  of  the  community  that 
he  hated  and  despised  far  more  than  he  did  the  British 

1  Dep.  of  Hugh  Madderer.  »  Dep.  of  Joseph  Montgomery. 

3  Dep.  of  Richard  Claybrooke. 

*  Examination  of  the  Rev.  George  Creichton.  6  Leland. 


1642]       THE   SUPREME   COUNCIL  PROGRAMME      285 

themselves.  Religion  and  hatred  of  the  Parliament  were 
in  fact  the  only  points  in  common  between  Owen 
Roe  and  the  new  control,  and — with  the  idea  of 
sustaining  unity  of  aim  as  long  as  possible — these 
two  points  were  fittingly  advertised  in  the  national 
programme,  the  words  "  loyalty  to  the  King  "  being  sub- 
stituted for  "  hatred  of  the  Parliament."  A  further  surface 
concession  was  made  to  the  aspirations  of  the  dispossessed 
Ulster  chiefs  by  announcing,  as  part  of  the  official  pro- 
gramme, that  no  Protestant  was  henceforth  to  own  land 
in  Ireland.  The  original  proclamation  in  the  native  Irish 
programme  had  been  that  "  none  of  English  blood  was  to 
own  land  in  Ireland"  ;  but,  as  this  might  easily  have  been 
interpreted  as  including  the  members  of  the  Supreme 
Council  and  their  friends,  the  word  "  Protestant  "  was 
substituted,  an  alteration  which  not  only  safeguarded  the 
Old  English,  but  which  lent  to  the  entire  movement  a 
religious  atmosphere  which  harmonised  suitably  with  the 
designs  of  its  continental  paymasters.  By  advertising 
its  enthusiasm  for  the  cause  of  King  Charles  (which  was 
probably  genuine)  the  Supreme  Council  at  the  same  time 
dexterously  shed  the  taint  of  rebellion  which  had  hitherto 
been  associated  with  the  Irish  rising.  It  became  thence- 
forth a  royalist  organisation  opposing  with  all  its  resources 
the  evil  machinations  of  a  rebel  Parliament. 

It  need  scarcely  be  said  that  the  sudden  apotheosis  of 
Preston  and  his  associates  of  the  Pale  was  the  bitterest  of 
gall  to  Owen  Roe.  Owen  Roe  was  second  to  none  in  re- 
ligious enthusiasm,  and  he  no  doubt  genuinely  preferred  the 
royalist  cause  to  that  of  the  Parliament ;  but  he  was 
first  and  foremost  a  patriot,  and  the  cause  for  which  he 
had  come  to  Ireland,  and  for  which  he  was  in  arms,  was 
the  expulsion  of  the  Ulster  colonists  and  the  re-establish- 
ment of  the  old  Irish  feudalism.  Such  aims,  as  already 
explained,  were  viewed  by  the  Supreme  Council  as  revo- 
lutionary and  dangerous,  and  by  no  means  to  be  encouraged 
by  reckless  subsidies.  Owen  Roe  was  given  a  thousand 
muskets,  which  it  was  hoped  would  be  sufficient  to  retain 
his  allegiance  without  at  the  same  time  putting  too  much 
power  into  his  hands.  He  was  appointed  Governor  of  Ulster 
and  Commander-in-Chief  of  the  Ulster  army,  his  rival,  and 
ultimate  enemy,  Preston,  being  at  the  same  time  appointed 
Commander-in-Chief  of  the  Leinster  army.  The  latter  had 


286    GENERAL  HOSTILITY  TO  OWEN  ROE    [CHAP,  iv 

now  under  him  one  of  the  best-equipped  armies  ever  seen  in 
Ireland.  He  commenced  his  campaign  auspiciously  by 
capturing  a  number  of  strongholds  in  Leinster,  the  garri- 
sons surrendering  at  his  approach  and  being  well  treated. 
In  fights  in  the  open,  however,  he  was  singularly  unfor- 
tunate. He  was  badly  defeated  by  Monck  at  Ballynakill 1 
in  Queen's  Co.,  and  early  in  1643  Sir  James  Dillon  completely 
routed  him  near  Mullingar.'  On  St.  Patrick's  Day,  Preston 
was  again  very  badly  beaten  at  Ballybeg,  where  we  are 
told  by  the  Irish  chronicler  that  though  the  gentry  and 
officers  fought  bravely,  the  rank  and  file  refused  to 
follow  them,  and  the  leaders  were  left  to  their  fate.8 

Owen  Roe  in  Ulster  fared  but  little  better  than  his  rival 
in  Leinster ;  but  Owen  Roe  had  the  excuse  of  a  badly 
equipped  army  while  Preston  had  practically  unlimited 
resources  behind  him.  The  Ulster  leader's  only  recorded 
success  during  his  first  year  in  Ireland  was  the  capture  of 
Dungannon,  which  Theophilus  Jones — after  being  reduced 
to  absolute  starvation — was  compelled  to  surrender  to  him. 
Jones  and  the  whole  of  his  garrison  were  safely  conducted 
by  Owen  Roe  to  Mount  joy,4  according  to  the  terms  of  capi- 
tulation, and  Nial  O'Neil,  a  first  cousin  of  Sir  Phelim,  was 
left  in  charge. 

Owen  Roe's  first  field  action  in  Ulster  was  practically 
forced  upon  him  by  Moiiro.  On  April  5  that  commander, 
having  received  five  weeks'  provisions  from  England,  felt 
justified  in  pushing  afield  as  far  as  Loughgall  in  Co.  Armagh, 
where  he  suddenly  found  himself  confronted  by  Owen 
Roe  at  the  head  of  1,500  foot  and  2  companies  of  horse.6 
The  country,  we  are  told,  was  very  thickly  enclosed  with 
ditches  and  banks,  behind  which  Owen  Roe's  force  was  so 
strongly  posted  that  at  first  Monro's  men  shrank  from 
attacking.  "  Fie,  fie,"  cried  the  Scottish  General  in  disgust, 
"  run  awa'  frae  awheen  rebels  !  "  And,  dismounting  from 
his  horse,  he  seized  a  pike  and  placed  himself  at  their  head.6 
Inspired  by  this  example,  Sir  James  Turner,  Major  Both- 
wick  and  Captain  Drummond  led  their  men  forward  and 
drove  back  the  opposing  infantry.  There  was  apparently 
nothing  in  the  nature  of  a  rout,  Owen  Roe  withdrawing 

1  Carte.  3  ibid.  p.  62. 

*  Aphorismical  Disc.  *  Despatch  of  an  unknown  officer. 

6  Despatch  of  an  unknown  officer.     The  fight  took  place  at  Anaghsamrie. 
6  Rdat-lon    of    Col.    Henry    O'Neil ;    Memoirs    of   Sir  James   Turner ; 
Aphorismical  Disc. 


1648]  MONTGOMERY  INVADES  CENTRAL  ULSTER  287 

his  men  to  Charlemont  in  comparatively  good  order.  The 
house  in  Loughgall  that  he  had  hitherto  occupied  was, 
however,  burnt.  Monro  marched  on  the  following  day  to 
Tandaragee,  where  there  appears  to  have  been  another 
engagement  in  the  course  of  which  Carte  says  that  Monro 
lost  Sir  James  Lockhart  and  a  hundred  men.  Turner,  who 
was  present  on  the  occasion,  makes  no  mention  of  any  such 
loss  of  men,  but  tells  us  that  Sir  James  Lockhart  was  shot 
in  the  stomach  and  killed  while  pursuing  some  Irish 
through  a  wood. 

Apparently  satisfied  with  his  performance  in  Armagh, 
Monro  returned  to  Carrickfergus  at  the  end  of  April.  The 
example  he  had  set  of  invading  Owen  Roe's  territory  was 
immediately  followed  by  Colonel  Chichester  and  young 
Lord  Montgomery,  whose  father  had  died  in  the  November 
preceding.  These  two  got  together  a  force  of  2.000  foot 
and  250  horse  with  which  they  marched  into  Armagh,  and 
through  that  county  into  Monaghan  and  Cavan,  pillaging 
the  country  as  they  went.  It  is  a  singular  fact,  of  which 
there  is  no  explanation,  that  Owen  Roe  made  no  attempt 
to  interfere  in  any  way  with  this  foraging  expedition,  and 
the  Co.  Down  force  returned  whence  it  had  come  without 
meeting  with  any  opposition.  Owen  Roe's  inaction  is  all 
the  more  unaccountable  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  effect 
of  Chichester's  raid  was  to  reduce  his  sources  of  supply  to 
such  a  low  pitch  that  he  was  forced  to  make  preparations 
for  abandoning  his  position  at  Charlemont  and  moving 
south  into  Leitrim.  As  he  was  on  the  point  of  moving, 
two  men  named  Rory  O'Hara  and  Loughlin  McRory * 
brought  information  to  the  two  Stewarts,  who  were  at 
Newtownstewart,  of  Owen  Roe's  predicament,  and  they 
resolved  on  instant  action. 

The  Lagan  Force,  since  we  last  saw  it,  had  undergone 
considerable  changes,  the  most  conspicuous  being  the 
inclusion  under  its  banner  of  two  of  the  Enniskillen 
regiments,  which  were  placed  under  the  command  of 
Colonel  Saunderson  and  Colonel  Galbraith,  and  added  to 
the  three  existing  regiments  commanded  by  the  two 
Stewarts  and  Audley  Mervyn.  Each  regiment  had  a  troop 
of  horse  attached.8  According  to  Carte,  the  six  Derry 

1  Owen  Roe  afterwards  caught  and  hanged  Loughlin  McRory,  but  he 
failed  to  lay  his  hands  on  O'Hara. 

2  W arr  of  Ireland. 

20 


288    GENERAL  HOSTILITY  TO  OWEN  ROE    [CHAP,  iv 

companies  and  the  six  Coleraine  companies  were  also 
entitled  to  describe  themselves  as  members  of  the  Lagan 
Force,  and  "  all  this  Force,"  he  adds,  "  behaved  with 
great  bravery  upon  all  occasions."  *  The  acknowledged 
leader  of  this  select  little  army  had  always  been  Sir 
Robert  Stewart.  In  September  1642  the  Lords  Justices — 
influenced  by  Sir  William  Stewart's  well-known  parlia- 
mentary leanings — issued  an  order  that  he  was  to  assume 
the  chief  command  of  the  Lagan  Force.  There  was, 
however,  such  a  general  outburst  of  indignation  from  all 
the  officers  and  men  that  the  Lords  Justices  thought  it 
best  to  withdraw  their  order,  and  the  younger  brother 
Sir  Robert  remained  in  command. 

The  Stewarts,  on  receipt  of  their  information,  at  once 
made  a  forced  march  into  Monaghan  with  such  troops  as 
they  could  hastily  get  together.  They  reached  Clones  on 
June  13,  1643,  while  Owen  Roe  was  in  the  very  act  of 
withdrawing  his  army  and  such  stores  as  he  had  left 
towards  the  south.  Owen  Roe  had  received  sufficient 
warning  of  the  approach  of  the  Lagan  Force  to  enable 
him  to  send  off  a  message  to  the  O'Reillys  asking  them  to 
come  to  his  aid.  Owing,  however,  either  to  lack  of  time 
or  lack  of  preparedness,  they  did  not  put  in  an  appearance 
in  time  for  the  battle.  Without  the  addition  of  the 
O'Reillys,  Owen  Roe's  force  consisted  of  1,600  fighting 
men  accompanied  by  an  equal  number  of  cattle-drivers. 
Mulhollan,  in  his  Warr  of  Ireland,  says  that  the  Lagan 
Force  at  Clones  consisted  of  the  three  original  regiments 
and  four  companies  of  Sir  William  Balfour's  regiment. 
Robert  Thornton,  however,  who,  as  Mayor  of  Deny,  must 
have  been  far  better  informed  than  an  officer  whose  duties 
lay  on  the  far  side  of  Lough  Neagh,  states  positively  in  a 
letter  to  Ormonde  that  the  total  strength  of  the  Lagan 
Force  at  Clones  was  600  foot  and  45  horse.8 

Owen  Roe  retreated  before  Stewart's  advance  till  the 
river  Finn  (Co.  Monaghan)  was  reached,  on  the  far  bank 
of  which  his  infantry  faced  about  and  prepared  to  defend 
the  passage.  The  Irish  horse  were  left  to  hold  off  the 
advance  of  the  Lagan  Force  till  the  dispositions  of  Owen 
Roe's  infantry  should  have  been  completed.  This  they 
did  not  succeed  in  doing  for  long.  They  were  almost  im- 

1  Carte,  vol.  i.  p.  366. 

*  Robert  Thornton  to  Ormonde,  October  17,  1643. 


1648]  BATTLE  OF  CLONES  289 

mediately  put  to  flight  and  chased  to  the  river,  which 
they  managed  to  cross  in  safety,  and  where  the  pursuit  of 
the  Lagan  Force  was  for  a  time  checked  by  the  fire  of 
the  infantry  on  the  far  bank.  Stewart  then  brought  up 
his  foot  to  the  attack.  Even  then  the  passage  of  the  ford 
was  for  a  long  time  hotly  contested,  but  the  Lagan  Force 
gradually  forced  its  way  across,  whereupon  the  Irish  broke 
and  fled. 

Owen  Roe  was  greatly  disappointed  at  the  behaviour  of 
his  men,  and  in  subsequently  writing  to  Sir  Robert  Stewart 
he  attributed  his  defeat,  rightly  or  wrongly,  to  the  cowardice 
of  Shane  Oge  O'Neil,  who  was  in  command  of  the  infantry.1 
The  defeat,  according  to  Carte,  was  the  worst  the  Irish  had 
yet  sustained  in  Ulster.  The  Lagan  Force  carried  on 
the  pursuit  for  ten  miles,  and  very  nearly  succeeded  in 
capturing  both  Owen  Roe  and  his  son,  Henry  Roe.  The 
Aphorismical  Discovery  attributes  their  escape  to  the  fact 
that  they  killed  five  out  of  the  six  men  who  were  pursuing 
them.  Very  few  of  the  others,  however,  were  as  fortunate 
as  the  Commander-in-Chief  and  his  son.  Cormac  O'Hagan, 
the  victor  at  Garvagh,  was  amongst  the  killed,  and  most 
of  the  trained  officers  whom  Owen  Roe  had  brought  with 
him  from  Spain  were  either  killed  or  taken  prisoners.  One 
of  these,  named  Con  Oge  O'Neil,  was,  we  are  told  by  Mul- 
hollan,  murdered  after  capture  by  a  minister  who  rode 
up  behind  and  shot  him  in  the  back,  to  the  great  indig- 
nation of  Sir  Robert  Stewart.8  The  rest  of  the  captives 
were  taken  to  Derry,  where  they  were  retained  as  prisoners 
for  three  years,  and  were  finally  exchanged  for  some  of  the 
British  officers  captured  on  the  defeat  of  Monro  at  Benburb. 
Derry  had  great  rejoicings  over  the  victory  of  the  Lagan 
Force,  and  enthusiastically  elected  Sir  Robert  Stewart 
Governor  of  the  city  in  place  of  Sir  John  Vaughan,  who  had 
just  died. 

Greatly  discouraged  and  shaken  by  his  defeat,  Owen 
Roe  made  his  way  first  to  Cavan  and  thence  to  Kilkenny, 
there  to  offer  to  the  Supreme  Council  explanations  of  his 
various  failures.  Daniel  O'Cahan  was  left  in  command  of 
the  Ulster  forces.  This  man,  who  had  arrived  in  Ireland 
with  Owen  Roe,  and  who  was  reputed  his  best  and  most 
experienced  leader,  very  shortly  afterwards  came  to  an 

1  Owen  Roe  to  Sir  Robert  Stewart,  June  16,  1643. 

2  Warr  of  Ireland. 


290    GENERAL  HOSTILITY  TO   OWEN  ROE    [CHAP,  iv 

unfortunate  end  in  the  following  manner.  He  and  Sir 
Phelim  were  reconnoitring  in  the  Large  (Aughracloy)  dis- 
trict with  100  foot  and  100  horse,  when  they  chanced  upon 
five  horsemen  belonging  to  the  Lagan  Force.  O'Cahan  at 
once  charged  the  enemy,  but  Sir  Phelim  and  the  rest  of 
the  horse  failed  to  follow,  and,  to  add  to  O'Cahan's  mis- 
fortunes, his  horse  stumbled  and  fell.  The  Lagan  men  at 
once  seized  the  fallen  man,  who  was  carried  off  in  front 
of  the  saddle  of  one  of  the  troopers.  Upon  witnessing 
this  disaster,  Sir  Phelim  persuaded  his  men  to  attempt 
the  rescue  of  their  leader,  and  they  galloped  in  pursuit. 
After  a  time  the  horse  which  carried  the  double  weight 
began  to  fall  behind,  whereupon  its  rider,  finding  himself 
being  overtaken,  shot  his  prisoner  through  the  head  and 
made  good  his  escape.1  The  author  of  the  Aphorismical 
Discovery,  as  usual,  makes  the  assertion  that  O'Cahan 
yielded  upon  promise  of  quarter  and  was  afterwards  killed, 
but  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  he  arrived  at  this  fact  unless 
the  five  Lagan  men  volunteered  the  information.  O'Mellan, 
who  was  probably  present  on  the  occasion,  makes  no  such 
statement. 

The  immediate  effect  of  the  battle  of  Clones  and  the 
withdrawal  of  Owen  Roe's  army  into  Cavan  was  that 
Dungannon  once  more  changed  hands.  In  August  it  was 
invested  by  a  large  force  under  Monro,  Montgomery, 
Clandeboye  and  Chichester,  and  Nial  O'Neil  was  compelled 
to  surrender.  In  recognition  of  Owen  Roe's  former  treat- 
ment of  Jones,  the  entire  garrison,  including  the  com- 
mander, were  allowed  to  march  out  with  their  arms,  and 
with  colours  flying,2  and  Sir  Theophilus  Jones  was  once 
more  re-established  in  his  old  post.  Encouraged  by  these 
successes,  the  British  force  once  again  made  an  attempt  to 
secure  the  surrender  of  Charlemont,  to  which  place  Nial 
O'Neil  had  made  his  way  from  Dungannon,  and  of  which 
he  at  once  took  over  command.  The  attempt  proved  a 
complete  failure,  and  after  a  couple  of  weeks  the  British 
force  returned  to  its  base. 

On  September  12,  just  about  the  time  that  the  siege  of 
Charlemont  was  abandoned,  Owen  Roe  secured  a  partial 
victory  at  Portlester,  in  Co.  Meath,  against  a  force  under  the 
command  of  Lord  Moore.  The  casualties,  we  are  told,  were 
few  on  either  side,  and  the  battle  was  ultimately  decided 

1  Friar  O'Mellan  and  Aphorismical  Disc.  *  Friar  O'Mellan. 


1643]  DEATH  OF  LORD   MOORE  291 

by  the  death  of  Lord  Moore,  who  received  a  direct  hit  from 
a  cannon  which  had  been  laid  by  Owen  Roe  himself.  On 
seeing  the  death  of  their  leader,  the  British  force  retired, 
carrying  his  remains  with  them.1 

Lord  Moore,  who  was  a  grandson  of  Sir  Garrett  Moore, 
so  strongly  suspected  of  complicity  with  Tyrone  in  Eliza- 
bethan times,  was  a  very  gallant  and  able  soldier,  and  his 
death  was  deeply  lamented. 

Three  days  after  the  Portlester  affair  Ormonde,  on  behalf 
of  the  King,  signed  a  Cessation  of  hostilities  for  twelve 
months,  the  other  party  to  the  Agreement  being  the 
Supreme  Council  acting  on  behalf  of  the  Irish  people. 

i  Carte. 


CHAPTER    V 

THE    CESSATION   OF   1643 

THE  Cessation  of  1643  was  the  first  practical  expression  of 
the  sympathy  and  similarity  of  aims  which  really  bound 
Ormonde  and  the  Supreme  Council  to  one  another,  and 
which  ultimately  brought  about  a  permanent  alliance 
between  the  two.  Ormonde  was  a  Protestant,  while  the 
Supreme  Council  were  necessarily  Roman  Catholics ;  but, 
except  in  this  one  particular,  they  were  antagonistic  in 
nothing  that  was  essential,  The  Supreme  Council's  pro- 
fessions of  religious  enthusiasm  were  in  the  main  a  pose, 
adopted  for  the  benefit  of  their  continental  friends  who 
furnished  the  sinews  of  war.  Both  Ormonde  and  the 
Supreme  Council  suspected  and  disliked  the  native  Irish 
and  dreaded  their  ascendancy  under  the  leadership  of 
Owen  Roe.  Both  alike  were  ardent  Royalists — not  so 
much,  in  every  case,  from  love  of  the  King  as  from  hatred 
of  the  Puritan  Parliament  against  which  he  was  fighting. 
In  view  of  Owen  Roe's  recent  victory  at  Portlester,  and 
in  view  of  the  immense  superiority  of  the  Irish  over  their 
opponents  in  the  matter  of  numbers,  money  and  arms,  the 
action  of  the  Supreme  Council  in  agreeing  to  a  Cessation 
is  to  be  explained  but  not  easily  excused.  The  nominal 
justification  put  forward  was  that  the  country  would  be  best 
served  by  a  combination  of  Ormonde  and  the  Irish  against 
the  parliamentary  menace.  This  was  plausible  enough, 
but  the  rejoinder  from  Owen  Roe's  point  of  view  was  that 
the  effect  of  the  arrangement  would  be  to  leave  Ulster  wholly 
at  the  mercy  of  Monro,  which  was  practically  true.  The 
special  hardship  of  the  position  in  Owen  Roe's  eyes  lay  in 
the  fact  that,  while  he  himself  was  bound  hand  and  foot  by 
the  terms  of  a  Cessation  signed  by  the  Supreme  Council,  his 
opponents  in  Ulster  declined  to  be  similarly  bound  by  a 
compact  as  to  which  they  had  not  been  consulted  and  with 

292 


1643]  ORMONDE  APPOINTED  LORD-LIEUTENANT    293 

the  spirit  of  which  they  were  not  in  agreement.  The  Irish 
Parliament  went  even  further.  Five  days  after  the  Ces- 
sation had  been  signed,  that  greatly  reduced  body,  under 
the  direction  of  the  Lords  Justices  Borlase  and  Tichborne, 
passed  an  official  repudiation  of  the  whole  transaction.1 
Monro  in  the  north,  who  seems  to  have  had  a  considerable 
respect  and  admiration  for  Owen  Roe,  did  not  go  so  far  as 
publicly  to  repudiate  the  Cessation,  but  he  declined  to  be 
bound  by  it  beyond  certain  limits.  In  this  resolution  he 
had  the  support  of  most  of  the  "  Old  Scots  "  leaders  in 
Ulster. 

By  the  terms  of  the  Cessation  in  question  each  party  was 
entitled  to  reap  the  crops  on  any  lands  which  it  was  occupy- 
ing on  September  15.  It  is  obvious  that  in  such  a  condition 
lay  the  seeds  of  boundless  conflict  and  confusion.  Monro 
claimed  that  he  had  been  in  occupation  of  the  whole  of 
Ulster  with  the  exception  of  Donegal  and  the  three  southern 
counties,  and,  on  the  strength  of  this  claim,  proceeded  to 
cut  all  the  corn  he  could  find.  On  one  occasion  either  he 
or  Chichester,  coming  suddenly  upon  a  party  of  Irish 
cutting  corn  to  which  they  were  not  supposed  to  be  entitled, 
killed  all  the  reapers,  men,  women  and  children. 2 

Owen  Roe  wrote  to  Ormonde  complaining  bitterly  of 
this  act  and  protesting  against  the  unfairness  of  a  contract 
which  was  not  binding  on  the  Ulster  Scots,  and  which 
at  the  same  time  effectually  tied  his  own  hands.  His 
indignation  finds  a  suitable  echo  in  the  lamentations  of 
the  priest  who  acted  as  his  secretary  and  who  is  the  author 
of  the  work  known  as  the  Aphorismical  Discovery.  "  Oh, 
poor  nation  !  "  he  cries,  in  allusion  to  the  signing  of  the 
treaty.  "  Oh  more  weak  than  goshlings  !  that  forebears 
such  an  inevitable  fate  that  to  the  present  act  is  annexed  ! 
But  nothing  will  be  done.  Och  !  Och  ! " 

Ormonde's  attitude  in  the  matter  is  quite  intelligible. 
He  had  just  been  created  a  Marquis  and  appointed  Lord- 
Lieutenant  of  Ireland  by  Charles,  who  at  the  same  time 
cancelled  Lord  Leicester's  appointment.  The  King's 
action  was  not  entirely  disinterested,  for,  together  with 
his  patent  as  Lord-Lieutenant,  Ormonde  received  definite 
instructions  to  conclude  peace  with  the  rebels  at  any  price, 

1  Carte,  vol.  i.  p.  450. 

8  Owen  Roe  to  Ormonde,  September  27,  1643  ;  Chichester  to  Owen  Roe, 
October  3,  1643. 


294  THE  CESSATION  OF   1643  [CHAP,  v 

in  order  that  the  English  troops  in  Ireland  might  be 
released  for  service  against  the  Parliament  in  England. 
There  was  always  also  in  the  King's  mind  a  lingering 
hope  that  the  Irish  themselves  might  be  prevailed  upon 
to  cross  the  channel  and  fight  his  battles  for  him. 

The  terms  on  which  the  Supreme  Council  consented 
to  make  peace  were  that  Ormonde,  and  the  English  royalist 
troops  under  him,  should  combine  with  them  against  the 
parliamentary  forces  in  Ireland,  as  represented  at  the 
moment  by  Monro  and  his  "  New  Scots  "  army.  Ormonde 
agreed,  provided  the  Supreme  Council  would  undertake 
to  send  10,000  Irish  troops  to  fight  the  Parliament  in 
England,  and  provided  the  Supreme  Council  paid  him 
£30,000 — half  in  money  and  half  in  supplies — so  as  to 
enable  him  to  put  his  troops  in  the  necessary  state  of 
efficiency  for  service  against  the  Parliament.  These  terms 
were  eventually  agreed  to,  and  the  stipulated  sum  appears 
to  have  been  paid  to  Ormonde,  but  the  promised  Irish 
troops  were  never  sent.  The  Supreme  Council  made  some 
pretence  of  anxiety  to  do  its  part.  Colonel  Barry  offered 
to  raise  3,000  out  of  the  10,000  promised,  Lord  Taafe, 
2,000,  Sir  John  Dargan  2,000,  and  the  Lords  of  the  Pale 
the  remaining  3,000.  "  But,"  says  Carte,  "  none  of 
these  promises  or  professions  took  effect,  nor  was  there 
so  much  as  one  regiment  or  company  carried  over  for 
the  King's  service."  *  Ormonde,  who  was  heart  and  soul 
devoted  to  the  royal  cause,  was  not  unnaturally  dis- 
gusted at  the  failure  of  the  Supreme  Council  to  live  up 
to  its  promises.  He  himself  did  the  best  he  could  in  the 
circumstances  by  sending  over  two  separate  contingents 
of  his  English  soldiers,  but  the  total  number  so  sent  was 
under  3,300,  and  both  contingents  were  severely  defeated 
by  the  Parliament  shortly  after  landing  in  England. 

Monro 's  harvesting  operations  in  Ulster  do  not  appear 
to  have  been  sufficiently  productive  for  the  feeding  of  all 
his  garrisons,  and  considerable  shortage  still  reigned. 
Mulhollan  tells  us  that  Monro  had  all  the  bread  in  the 
province,  but  no  meat  or  butter,  while  Owen  Roe  had  all 
the  meat  and  butter  but  no  bread,  and  a  certain  amount 
of  exchange  seems  to  have  taken  place  between  the  two 
leaders.8  Monro,  however,  was  very  careful  to  keep  all 
the  food  supplies  which  he  had  acquired  in  his  own  hands 
i  Carte,  vol.  i.  p.  474.  »  Warr  of  Ireland. 


1644]  RECALL   OF  MONRO'S  ARMY  295 

for  the  use  of  his  "  New  Scots  "  army.  He  was  beginning 
to  suspect  many  of  the  "  Old  Scots,"  i.e.  the  1610  settlers, 
of  royalist  leanings.  For  these  suspicions  there  were 
some  grounds.  Ormonde — always  indefatigable  in  the 
King's  cause — was  doing  his  utmost  at  the  time  to  win 
over  the  northern  leaders  to  the  King's  party,  and  Monro 
was  by  no  means  disposed  to  furnish  these  with  supplies 
which  might  in  the  near  future  be  used  to  his  own  disadvan- 
tage. Sinclair  and  Turner  at  Newry  were  both  officers  of 
his  own,  but  they,  none  the  less,  were  included  in  his  list 
of  suspects  and  left  to  shift  for  themselves.  The  garrison 
was  soon  on  the  verge  of  starvation.  Sir  William  Cole 
at  Enniskillen,  and  Jones  at  Dungannon  were  in  little 
better  state.  Sir  John  Clotworthy  at  Antrim  appears  to 
have  been  the  only  eastern  commander  who  retained 
Monro's  complete  confidence.  The  Lagan  Force  in  the 
north-west  was  admittedly  outside  of  his  jurisdiction,  and 
was  by  general  consent  expected  to  provide  for  itself  from 
the  country  west  of  the  Bann  and  Lough  Neagh. 

At  the  beginning  of  February  1644  the  food  situation 
in  Ulster  became  so  bad  that  an  order  came  from  Scotland 
for  the  recall  of  Monro's  army,  which  it  was  found  im- 
possible to  supply  with  the  necessaries  of  military  existence 
from  the  far  side  of  the  channel.  The  announcement 
occasioned  general  dismay  amongst  the  Ulster  colonists, 
and  a  petition  signed  by  practically  all  the  officers  of 
Monro's  force  and  of  the  Lagan  Force  was  sent  to  Scotland 
urging  the  reconsideration  of  the  edict.  Monro  himself 
was  greatly  averse  to  moving,  being  on  the  point  of  con- 
tracting an  alliance  with  the  widow  of  the  late  Lord 
Montgomery ;  but  the  rank  and  file  of  his  army,  who  had 
for  some  time  past  been  very  mutinous,  were  overjoyed  at 
the  prospect  of  being  relieved  from  the  state  of  semi- 
starvation  to  which  they  had  for  so  long  been  doomed.  As 
a  preliminary  to  moving,  Monro  ordered  a  withdrawal  of  the 
garrisons  from  Newry,  Dungannon  and  Mountjoy,  and  from 
the  small  Castles  lying  along  the  Bann  between  Castle 
Toombe  and  Coleraine.  Sinclair  and  Turner  at  Newry  sup- 
pressed the  fact  that  the  garrison  had  been  recalled,  and 
tried  to  turn  the  occasion  to  profit  by  selling  the  place 
to  the  native  Irish.  With  this  end  in  view,  Turner  met  Tir- 
lough  Oge  of  Loughrosse  at  Kirriotter  (Poyntzpass)  to  dis- 
cuss terms.  Each,  according  to  arrangement,  came  accom- 


296  THE  CESSATION   OF   1643  [CHAP,  v 

panied  by  twenty  men,  and,  after  the  consumption  of 
much  whisky,  it  was  finally  arranged  that  the  place  should 
be  handed  over  to  Owen  Roe  in  consideration  of  the 
immediate  delivery  of  140  cows  for  the  use  of  the  starving 
garrison.1  The  deal,  however,  did  not  go  through,  for, 
before  the  cows  were  forthcoming,  Ormonde  came  forward 
with  a  better  offer  of  £80,  which  was  accepted,  and  Newry 
passed  into  the  hands  of  the  Royalists,  Colonel  Matthews 
(of  Dromore  fame)  being  appointed  its  Governor.  This 
incident  is  of  interest  as  showing  that,  though  Ormonde 
and  Owen  Roe  were  now  nominally  allied  against  the 
parliamentarian  Monro,  there  was  still  very  great  distrust 
between  the  two  and  a  strong  desire  on  the  part  of  each 
to  wrest  important  strongholds  out  of  the  keeping  of  the 
other.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  these  preliminary  retrench- 
ments on  the  part  of  Monro  were  unnecessary,  as  the 
petition  of  the  Scottish  officers  proved  effective,  and  the 
order  to  evacuate  Ulster  was  rescinded.  On  November 
28,  1643,  nearly  three  months  before  the  order  came  for 
the  withdrawal  of  the  Scots  army,  it  had  been  resolved, 
at  a  meeting  of  English  and  Scottish  Commissioners,  held 
in  Edinburgh,  to  send  off  at  once  10,000  suits  of  clothes, 
3,000  muskets,  15,000  barrels  of  meal,  1,500  pikes,  500 
pistols,  and  £10,000  on  account  of  arrears  of  pay,  the 
balance  of  £50,000  to  be  delivered  at  Carrickfergus  on  the 
1st  of  February  following.*  Money  difficulties,  however, 
in  both  countries  prevented  the  scheme  from  being  carried 
through,  and,  in  place  of  its  fulfilment,  came  the  order  for 
Monro's  withdrawal.  The  urgent  petition  of  the  Scottish 
officers  in  Ulster  brought  about  a  reconsideration  of  the 
whole  question,  as  a  result  of  which  the  consignment 
of  money  and  clothing,  already  described,  was  delivered 
at  Carrickfergus  in  April  1644.  About  the  same  time 
the  situation  was  still  further  relieved  by  the  arrival  at 
Carrickfergus  of  two  Dutch  ships  laden  with  provisions 
which  had  been  sent  across  as  a  charitable  gift  by  the 
Dutch  people  in  a  desire  to  help  the  distressed  Protestants 
in  the  north  of  Ireland. 

1  Carte,  vol.  i.  p.  486  ;  Memoirs  of  Sir  James  Turner. 
1  Carte,  vol.  i.  p.  486. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  SOLEMN  LEAGUE  AND  COVENANT 

THE  Cessation  of  1643,  while  relieving  the  country  from 
the  turmoil  and  stress  of  active  war,  gave  at  the  same 
time  much-needed  opportunities  for  the  consideration 
of  outside  matters.  Of  these  there  was  none  at  the 
moment  to  compare,  in  point  of  public  interest,  with  the 
semi-religious  and  semi-political  compact  between  England 
and  Scotland,  known  as  "  The  Solemn  League  and  Cove- 
nant." This  compact  was  a  revival,  in  an  expanded  form, 
of  the  old  "  Covenant  with  God  "  which  had  been  called  into 
existence  by  Queen  Mary's  persecution  of  the  Protestants 
in  1581.  Its  revival  was  brought  about  by  State  needs 
rather  than  by  religious  troubles.  The  Cornish  rising 
in  1643  which  gave  the  King  the  whole  of  the  west  country, 
and  which  culminated  in  the  surrender  of  Bristol,  so 
seriously  alarmed  the  Parliament  that  Sir  Harry  Vane 
was  sent  to  Edinburgh  to  invoke  the  aid  of  Scotland.  The 
terms  ultimately  agreed  to,  in  consideration  of  which  the 
Scots  undertook  to  throw  their  weight  into  the  scale  against 
the  Royalists,  included  the  permanent  establishment  of  the 
Presbyterian  religion  in  Scotland,  the  conformity  of 
the  English  and  Irish  Churches  to  the  Scottish  form  of 
worship,  and  the  extirpation  of  Papacy  and  prelacy. 
Such  was  the  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  which  was 
in  effect  a  political  treaty  between  England  and  Scotland, 
the  Scots  undertaking  to  give  military  aid  in  return  for 
certain  religious  reforms.  In  their  first  joy  at  an  alliance 
which  relieved  them  from  very  grave  dangers,  the  Members 
of  the  House  of  Commons  showed  an  enthusiasm  for  the 
new  oath  which  was  equal  to  that  of  Scotland  itself. 
On  September  25  the  whole  body  of  the  House  took  the 
Covenant  in  St.  Margaret's  Church  with  uplifted  hands, 
and,  not  content  with  this,  despatched  Owen  O'Connelly, 

297 


298  THE  SOLEMN  LEAGUE  AND  COVENANT    [CHAP,  vi 

the  discoverer  of  the  1641  plot,  as  their  special  emissary 
to  propagate  its  tenets  in  Ulster.  The  City  Companies, 
in  a  spirit  of  equal  enthusiasm,  at  the  same  time  sent  over 
their  own  envoys  to  bring  pressure  to  bear  upon  their 
tenants  in  Co.  Londonderry.1  In  London  and  the  eastern 
counties  the  Presbyterian  form  of  worship  took  strong 
hold.  Conversion  was  accomplished  in  this  case  not  by 
statute  but  by  the  voluntary  act  of  the  converts.  The 
King,  in  some  alarm  at  the  new  developments,  unequi- 
vocally condemned  the  Covenant  as  "a  seditious  and 
traitorous  combination  against  him."  *  In  Ireland  the 
Lords  Justices  Borlase  and  Tichborne  supported  him 
to  the  extent  of  issuing  a  definite  order  forbidding  the 
officers  of  the  Ulster  army  to  take  the  Covenant.  As 
the  taking  of  the  Covenant  was,  before  all  else,  a  definite 
declaration  of  policy,  it  can  be  easily  understood  that 
these  contrary  instructions  placed  the  Ulster  leaders  in 
a  very  awkward  predicament.  On  January  2,  1644, 
Lord  Montgomery,  Sir  James  Montgomery,  Sir  Robert 
Stewart,  Sir  William  Cole,  Colonels  Chichester,  Hill  and 
Audley  Mervyn,  and  Robert  Thornton,  the  Mayor  of 
Derry,  met  at  Belfast  to  decide  upon  their  line  of  action. 
Sir  William  Stewart,  who  was  away  in  England  at  the 
time,  sent  a  message  expressing  his  willingness  to  be 
bound  by  the  decision  of  the  majority.  After  lengthy 
deliberations,  the  assembled  leaders  finally  resolved  not  to 
take  the  Covenant  but,  at  the  same  time,  evidently  thought 
it  wise  to  conceal  this  determination  as  far  as  possible,  for 
in  the  report  of  the  proceedings  which  they  sent  over  to 
Parliament  they  contented  themselves  with  expressing  their 
readiness  to  continue  the  war  against  the  rebels  in  Ulster 
"  with  the  consent  of  the  King  and  Parliament  " — an 
ambiguous  declaration  which  left  the  situation  very  much 
where  it  was  before.  The  undecided  attitude  of  the  Ulster 
leaders  decided  the  Scottish  Assembly  to  the  adoption 
of  more  vigorous  measures.  Early  in  March,  four  perfervid 
apostles  of  the  Covenant,  by  name  James  Hamilton, 
William  Adair,  Hugh  Henderson  and  John  Weir,  arrived 
at  Carrickfergus  from  Scotland.  The  presence  of  these 
four  men,  who  had  been  specially  selected  for  their  powers 
of  eloquence  and  their  enthusiasm  in  the  cause  of  the 
Covenant,  had  its  immediate  effect  on  the  public  mind 
1  Carte,  vol.  i.  p.  486.  *  Ibid.  p.  487. 


1644]      CONVERSION  OF  THE  LAGAN  FORCE         299 

in  Ulster.  On  April  4  Monro  himself  and  all  his  officers, 
with  the  exception  of  that  unshakable  Royalist,  Major 
Dalziel,  took  the  Covenant.  Many  of  the  "  Old  Scots  "  of 
Down  and  Antrim  followed  their  example,  and  the  mission 
then  moved  west  to  the  attack  of  Londonderry  and  the 
Lagan  Force.  As  was  only  to  be  expected,  it  did  not  meet 
with  the  same  success  beyond  the  Bann  that  had  attended 
its  efforts  in  the  east,  but  none  the  less  its  achievements 
were  remarkable.  Derry,  as  the  metropolis  of  the  north- 
west, was  the  first  place  visited,  and  here  quite  a  number 
of  the  inhabitants,  headed  by  Sir  Frederick  Hamilton, 
took  the  Covenant,  in  spite  of  the  violent  opposition  of 
Robert  Thornton,  the  Mayor.  At  Raphoe,  which  was 
next  visited,  the  whole  of  Sir  Robert  Stewart's  regiment 
took  the  Covenant  except  the  commander,  who  was  away 
at  the  time  in  Dublin.  Sir  William  Stewart  was  still 
in  England,  but  in  his  absence  his  regiment,  which  was 
quartered  at  Letterkenny,  followed  the  example  of  that 
of  his  brother.  The  greatest  triumph  of  the  mission, 
however,  and  the  greatest  tribute  to  the  persuasive  elo- 
quence of  its  members,  was  at  Ramelton,  where  the  whole 
of  Audley  Mervyn's  regiment  took  the  Covenant,  in  spite 
of  the  vehement  protestations  of  its  Colonel.1  From 
Ramelton  the  mission  then  moved  south  to  Enniskillen, 
being  escorted  on  the  journey  by  Colonel  Saunderson 
and  two  troops  of  the  Lagan  Force.  Like  the  other 
leaders  of  the  Lagan  Force,  Sir  William  Cole  was  not  to 
be  won  over  at  the  moment ;  but  we  are  told  that  all  his 
family  took  the  Covenant,  as  did  also  his  Lieutenant, 
Colonel  Acheson.2 

Patrick  Adair,  on  whom  we  have  to  rely  for  most  of 
these  particulars,  and  who  was  in  Ireland  either  at  the 
time  of,  or  very  shortly  after,  the  tour  of  the  four  envoys, 
tells  us  that,  on  their  return  north,  Audley  Mervyn  publicly 
took  the  Covenant  at  Strabane,  his  conversion  being 
hailed  by  shouts  of  "  Welcome,  welcome,  Colonel  "  from 
his  men.  He  adds  that  a  week  later  Sir  Robert  Stewart 
took  the  Covenant  at  Coleraine  and  Sir  William  Cole 
followed  his  example  just  before  he  sailed  for  England 

1  Patrick  Adair's  Presbyterian  Church  in  Ireland. 

2  It  is  greatly  to  be  doubted,  in  the  light  of  subsequent  events,  whether 
Acheson  actually  did  take  the  Covenant.     Patrick  Adair  is  not  always 
reliable. 


300  THE  SOLEMN  LEAGUE  AND  COVENANT  [CHAP,  vi 

from  Carrickfergus.1  It  is  to  be  feared,  however,  that 
Mr.  Adair's  enthusiasm  has  led  him  into  error  with  regard 
to  the  action  of  these  Lagan  Force  leaders.  Carte  posi- 
tively denies  that  Audley  Mervyn  took  the  Covenant,  and 
his  view  is  borne  out  by  the  fact  that,  soon  after  the 
mission  had  passed  on  its  way  through  Tyrone,  Ormonde 
nominated  Mervyn  Governor  of  Derry  hi  place  of 
Sir  Robert  Stewart,*  which  would  hardly  have  been  the 
case  had  he  recently  taken  the  Covenant.  We  know,  too, 
that  Audley  Mervyn's  position  as  Governor  of  Derry 
subsequently  proved  extremely  difficult  on  account  of 
his  avowed  hostility  to  the  Covenant.  Most  of  the  in- 
habitants were  converts ;  even  Thornton,  the  Mayor, 
originally  a  most  strenuous  opponent,  found  it  necessary 
in  the  end  to  conform  to  public  opinion.  To  add  to  the 
difficulties  of  Audley  Mervyn's  position,  we  learn  that 
Sir  Frederick  Hamilton,  who  had  always  been  a  candidate 
for  the  Governorship  of  Derry,  took  up  his  residence  in 
the  City  and  so  undermined  Audley  Mervyn's  influence 
that  he  was  in  the  end  forced  to  take  the  Covenant.  It 
is  quite  clear,  then,  that  Adair's  story  of  the  Strabane 
conversion  belongs  to  the  sphere  of  fiction.  It  is  no 
less'  clear  that  the  story  of  Sir  Robert  Stewart's  con- 
version is  equally  apocryphal,  for  on  May  23  we  find 
him  among  the  Royalists — or  at  any  rate  the  undecided — 
leaders  who  met  at  Belfast  to  consider  what  their  future 
action  in  the  matter  of  the  Covenant  was  to  be. 

Although  the  military  leaders  in  Ulster  showed  a  marked 
and  perhaps  not  unnatural  reluctance  to  making  a  definite 
declaration  in  the  matter  of  the  Covenant,  there  was  no 
such  hesitation  on  the  part  of  the  rank  and  file.  By 
the  spring  of  1644  the  only  three  towns  in  the  north  which 
had  not  yet  yielded  to  the  persuasive  eloquence  of  the 
Scottish  envoys  were  Coleraine,  Lisburn  and  Belfast. 
Ormonde  at  once  tried  to  fasten  his  hold  upon  these 
three  towns.  He  prevailed  upon  Owen  Roe  to  supply 
both  Theophilus  Jones  at  Lisburn  and  Sir  James  Mont- 
gomery at  Belfast  with  powder  for  purposes  of  defence 
in  case  Monro  became  aggressive,'  and  he  himself  sent 
Montgomery  £300  for  the  same  purpose.  He  was  wise 

1  Cole  was  sent  over  on  a  special  mission  to  represent  to  the  Parliament 
the  extreme  hardships  endured  by  the  British  forces  in  Ulster. 
8  Carte,  vol.  i.  p.  492. 
3  Relation  of  Col.  O'Neil. 


1644]  MONRO  SEIZES  BELFAST  301 

enough,  however,  to  recognise  that  persuasion  is  more 
desirable  than  strife,  and  Montgomery  was  at  the  same 
.time  instructed,  before  assuming  an  openly  defiant  attitude, 
to  try  to  win  Monro  over  by  other  means.  Acting  on 
these  instructions,  Montgomery  paid  a  visit  to  Carrick- 
fergus  and  used  all  the  inducements  with  which  he  had 
been  secretly  armed  in  order  to  procure  Monro's  conversion. 
To  the  overtures  of  the  royalist  advocate  the  Scottish 
commander  replied  that  he  would  willingly  serve  the 
King  were  it  in  his  power  to  do  so,  but  that,  having  been 
appointed  by  the  Parliament,  he  had  no  option  but  to 
continue  serving  the  Parliament.  This  declaration  was 
shortly  afterwards  followed  by  more  active  measures. 
Monro  had  in  April  been  appointed  Commander-in-Chief 
of  the  Ulster  Forces,  and  on  the  strength  of  this  appoint- 
ment he  resolved  on  a  bold  stroke.  On  May  23  Lord 
Montgomery,  Sir  James  Montgomery,  Lord  Blayney,  Sir 
Robert  Stewart,  Colonel  Hill,  Colonel  Chichester,  Sir 
George  Rawdon,  Colonel  Matthews  and  Sir  Theophilus 
Jones  were  assembled  at  Belfast  to  consider  the  difficult 
position  in  which  they  found  themselves  owing  to  the 
recent  extension  of  Monro's  command.  While  they  were 
in  the  act  of  discussing  matters,  a  scout  arrived  with  the 
news  that  Monro  was  marching  towards  the  town  at  the 
head  of  two  regiments.  Wild  rumours  of  this  sort  were 
common  to  the  country,  and  two  horsemen  were  sent  out 
to  learn  what  truth  there  was  in  the  rumour.  They 
returned  with  the  report  that  the  whole  story  was  a 
fabrication  and  that  Monro  was  nowhere  in  sight.  Re- 
assured by  this  news,  the  leaders  resumed  their  delibera- 
tions, which  were  interrupted  by  the  sudden  appearance  of 
Monro  himself  who,  with  his  two  regiments,  had  marched 
unopposed  into  the  town  where  he  had  been  joined  by  the 
two  treacherous  horsemen. 

Monro  explained  that  his  object  was  essentially  pacific, 
but  that — in  face  of  a  recent  proclamation  issued  by  Sir 
James  Montgomery  and  Colonel  Chichester  in  which  all 
who  had  taken  the  Covenant  were  denounced  as  traitors 
— he  did  not  feel  that  the  lives  of  any  were  safe  while  so 
important  a  place  remained  in  the  hands  of  those  who 
held  such  views.  No  attempt  was  made  to  place  any 
restraint  on  the  movements  of  the  suspected  officers, 
who  dispersed  in  peace  to  their  various  stations,  from 


302  THE  SOLEMN  LEAGUE  AND  COVENANT  [CHAP.  vi 

which  it  seems  tolerably  clear  that  Monro's  action  was  in 
the  main  dictated  by  the  knowledge  of  the  money  and 
powder  with  which  Montgomery  had  been  recently  fur- 
nished. The  latter  was  relieved  of  his  command  and 
returned  to  Grey  Abbey,  Belfast  being  left  in  temporary 
charge  of  Colonel  Hume.1  Monro's  vigorous  action  was 
not  in  the  long  run  without  its  good  effects,  for  shortly 
afterwards  an  amicable  arrangement  was  arrived  at  by 
all  the  Ulster  leaders,  in  accordance  with  which  it  was 
agreed  that  they  should  continue  to  work  together  against 
the  Irish  rebels,  provided  no  action  was  taken  which 
might  be  considered  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  the 
King. 

With  a  view  to  putting  the  assurances  of  the  Ulster 
leaders  to  a  practical  test,  Monro,  at  the  beginning  of  June, 
ordered  a  general  concentration  of  the  British  forces  on 
Armagh,  for  the  purpose  of  an  invasion  of  Leinster,  there 
being  no  Irish  army  in  Ulster  at  the  time  against  which 
military  operations  might  be  attempted.  Owen  Roe  was 
living  at  the  time  on  the  borders  of  Meath  and  West- 
meath.  The  Lagan  Force  and  the  majority  of  the  "  Old 
Scots  "  obeyed  the  summons,  the  total  force  mustered 
numbering,  according  to  Carte,  no  less  than  10,000  foot 
and  1,000  horse.  These  figures  are  clearly  a  gross 
exaggeration.  Mulhollan — who  must  have  known  within 
reasonable  limits — tells  us  that  the  total  British  force  in 
Ulster  at  the  time  amounted  to  7,000  foot  and  700  horse,1 
and  many  of  these — as  for  instance  the  garrisons  at  Newry 
and  Lisburn — did  not  respond  to  Monro's  summons. 
Nor  is  it  to  be  supposed  that — during  Monro's  concen- 
tration— the  Ulster  towns  were  left  wholly  without  garri- 
sons. Carte's  object,  of  course,  is  to  discredit  Monro  by 
accentuating  the  magnitude  of  his  preparations  in  com- 
parison with  the  barrenness  of  his  performances. 

Monro,  who  had  provisions  with  him  for  three  weeks, 
made  unopposed  progress  as  far  as  Cavan,  and  from  thence 
sent  out  foraging  parties  into  Meath  and  Longford,  which 
captured  some  cattle  and  killed  a  few  country  people. 
His  provisions,  however,  rapidly  became  exhausted  and 
at  the  end  of  the  first  week  in  July  he  prepared  to  return 
to  the  north.  On  July  12  he  reached  Newry  and  sent  a 
summons  to  Colonel  Matthews  to  open  the  gates  so  that 

1  Account  of  surprisal  of  Belfast.  2  Warr  of  Ireland. 


1644]  CASTLEHAVEN'S  COMMAND  IN  ULSTER       803 

the  army  might  march  through  the  town.  Matthews 
replied  that  there  was  an  excellent  road  running  outside 
the  walls  which  would  equally  well  answer  Monro's  purpose, 
and  added  that,  after  the  recent  experiences  of  Lord 
Montgomery  and  others  at  Belfast,  he  had  no  intention 
of  letting  Monro's  army  inside.  In  face  of  this  defiance, 
Monro  strode  alone  into  the  town  and  openly  accused 
Matthews  of  mutiny  in  disobeying  the  orders  of  his  Com- 
mander-in-Chief.  Finding  that  this  accusation  made  no 
impression,  he  ordered  the  troops  inside  to  lay  down 
their  arms  and  dismiss.  Their  reply  was  to  point  their 
muskets  at  his  head.  Monro,  though  a  poor  general, 
was  undoubtedly  a  very  fearless  man,  but  the  situation 
was  an  impossible  one,  and  he  had  no  alternative  but  to 
withdraw,  with  the  parting  threat  that  he  would  storm 
the  town  and  carry  it  by  assault.  On  reflection,  however, 
he  thought  better  of  this  resolve,  and  the  army  continued 
its  march  by  the  outside  road.1 

During  the  summer  of  1644,  and  while  the  Cessation 
was  still  in  force,  the  Supreme  Council  of  Confederate 
Catholics  gave  unmistakable  proof  of  its  strong  antagonism 
to  the  native  Irish  party  by  appointing  Lord  Castlehaven 
Commander-in-Chief  of  the  Ulster  army  in  place  of  Owen 
Roe.  The  surface  excuse  put  forward  to  explain  this 
extraordinary  step  was  that  Preston  and  Owen  Roe 
hated  one  another  so  heartily  that  anything  in  the  nature 
of  co-ordination  between  the  two  was  an  impossibility.* 

In  his  new  capacity  as  Commander-in-Chief  of  the  Ulster 
Irish,  Castlehaven — who,  according  to  Aphorismical  Dis- 
covery was  granted  £30,000  by  the  Supreme  Council  to 
defray  the  cost  of  his  expedition  J — started  for  the  north 
in  August,  a  good  month  before  the  Cessation  had  expired, 
so  as  to  be  ready  for  active  operations  at  the  first  legitimate 
moment.  His  own  army,  which  was  composed  entirely 
of  Leinster  and  Munster  men,  numbered  some  5,000, 
and  Owen  Roe  was  invited  by  the  Supreme  Council  to 
join  him  with  the  Ulster  army,  by  this  time  reduced  by 
lack  of  money,  arms  and  food  to  2,000.  Owen  Roe,  whose 
position  was  clearly  defined  by  the  Supreme  Council  as 
being  entirely  subordinate  to  that  of  Castlehaven,  sullenly 

1  Carte,  vol.  i.  p.  496. 

*  Richard  Bellings's  Confederation  and  War. 

3  Aphorismical  Disc.,  p.  88. 

21 


304  THE  SOLEMN  LEAGUE  AND  COVENANT  [CHAP,  vi 

declined  to  act  as  second  in  command  to  a  Munster  man 
in  his  own  province,  and  remained  with  his  army  in  Cavan, 
while  Castlehaven  advanced  alone  into  Co.  Down.  Owen 
Roe  was  ill  in  bed  at  the  time,  but  there  is  no  doubt 
that  his  unreasonable  behaviour  was  dictated  by  resent- 
ment rather  than  by  sickness.  Castlehaven's  first  objective 
was  Charlemont,  where  he  occupied  the  few  remaining 
weeks  of  the  Cessation  in  constructing  elaborate  defence- 
works  on  the  banks  of  the  Blackwater.1  While  at  Charle- 
mont his  army  was  regularly  supplied  with  provisions 
from  Newry,  Dundalk  and  Drogheda,  all  of  which  were  in 
the  hands  of  Ormonde.2 

In  provisioning  Castlehaven's  army,  Ormonde  was 
doing  no  more  than  he  had  undertaken  to  do  under  the 
terms  of  the  Cessation  Agreement.  By  these  terms, 
Ormonde  and  the  Supreme  Council  had  agreed  that  there 
should  be  a  twelve  months'  cessation  of  hostilities  in 
Ireland  to  enable  the  royalist  English  in  Ireland,  the 
Anglo-Irish  and  the  native  Irish  to  combine  together 
against  the  parliamentary  forces.  Monro  and  his  "New 
Scots  "  army  in  Ulster  had  not  at  first  for  various  reasons 
been  included  among  the  parliamentary  enemies  of 
Charles's  cause.  Of  these  reasons  the  foremost  was  found 
in  the  hope  which  Ormonde  continually  entertained  of 
winning  the  Ulster  Commander-in-Chief  over.  It  was  not 
till  the  native  Irish  had  shown  very  clearly  that  they  did 
not  intend  going  over  to  England  to  fight  Charles's  battles, 
that  Ormonde  realised  that  the  only  practical  help 
he  could  give  to  his  royal  master  was  by  attacking  the 
parliamentary  forces  in  Ulster.  Monro's  definite  refusal 
to  join  the  royalist  party  removed  any  remaining  scruples 
which  Ormonde  might  have  entertained  as  to  the  pursuit 
of  such  a  course.  As  soon  as  Ormonde  had  decided  as 
to  the  course  to  which  his  duty  pointed,  it  was  agreed 
that,  the  moment  the  Cessation  had  expired,  Castlehaven 
and  Owen  Roe  should  attack  Monro  in  combination. 
Ormonde  was  too  wise  and  too  distrustful  of  his  allies 
to  allow  his  own  garrisons  out  to  swell  the  number  of 
the  expeditionary  force,  but  he  did  the  next  best  thing 
in  his  power  by  furnishing  the  invading  army  with  pro- 
visions. Ormonde  was,  in  fact,  under  a  moral  obligation 
to  make  all  the  reparation  in  his  power  for  the  recent 

1  Aphorismical  Disc.,  p.  88.  a  Relation  of  Col.  O'Neil. 


1644]  INCHIQUIN   CHANGES   SIDES  805 

outrageous  behaviour  in  the  south  of  his  close  associate 
Inchiquin,  who,  on  August  3,  had,  without  any  provocation, 
raided  the  town  of  Cork  and  stripped  the  unfortunate 
merchants  of  everything  they  possessed.1  The  feeble 
excuse  put  forward  by  Inchiquin  for  this  flagrant  violation 
of  the  terms  of  a  Cessation  to  which  he  himself  had  put 
his  signature  was  that  he  had  information  to  the  effect 
that  the  Irish  contemplated  breaking  the  Cessation  and 
that,  in  acting  as  he  did,  he  was  merely  forestalling  the 
other  side.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  this  explanation 
deceived  anybody.  The  truth  was  that  Inchiquin  had 
for  some  time  past  found  the  greatest  difficulty  in  main- 
taining his  army,  and  had  been  driven  to  the  piratical 
raid  on  Cork  as  the  only  means  of  preventing  his  forces  from 
dispersing.  It  is  probable  that,  for  some  time  past, 
Inchiquin  had  been  working  himself  up  into  a  frame  of 
mind  sufficiently  rebellious  to  enable  him  to  throw  over 
his  allegiance  to  the  King  and  join  the  Parliament.  He 
had  made  a  special  journey  to  England  in  the  spring  of 
the  year  to  petition  the  King — who  was  at  Oxford  at  the 
time — for  the  Presidency  of  Munster.  Charles,  who, 
for  some  unaccountable  reason,  was  reserving  the 
post  for  Weston,  Earl  of  Portland,  declined  to  grant 
the  petition,  and  Inchiquin  returned  to  Ireland  a 
very  embittered  man.  He  took  no  public  action, 
however,  till  after  the  battle  of  Marston  Moor  in  July. 
Marston  Moor  was  the  first  serious  reverse  the  royalist 
troops  had  as  yet  sustained,  and  the  complete  overthrow 
of  Prince  Rupert  on  that  disastrous  occasion  seems  to 
have. decided  Inchiquin  to  throw  in  his  lot  with  the  winning 
side ;  for,  almost  immediately  afterwards,  he  publicly 
declared  himself  on  the  side  of  the  Parliament  and  made 
his  change  of  sides  the  excuse  for  raiding  the  unfortunate 
Cork  merchants.  At  the  same  time,  to  show  that  his 
conversion  was  not  merely  nominal,  he  wrote  to  Monro 
offering  to  co-operate  with  him  in  the  north  against 
Ormonde  and  the  Supreme  Council.  Monro' s  reply  is 
not  on  record,  but  it  is  highly  improbable  that  he  would 
have  had  sufficient  faith  in  Inchiquin  to  invite  him  up 
into  Ulster  at  the  moment  when  his  late  allies,  Castlehaven 
and  Owen  Roe,  were  invading  the  province.  In  any 

1  "  A  Particular  Account  of  my  Lord  Inchiquin's  Usage  of  the  Inhabi- 
tants of  Cork"  (Confederation  and  War) ;  Carte,  vol.  i.  p.  612. 


306  THE  SOLEMN  LEAGUE  AND  COVENANT  [CHAP,  vi 

event  Inchiquin  did  not  go  north,  but  he  gave  satisfactory 
proof,  in  his  own  province,  of  his  devotion  to  the  parlia- 
mentary cause  by  falling  upon  his  fellow-countrymen 
with  a  ruthless  ferocity  which  finds  no  parallel  in  the 
entire  history  of  the  ten  years'  war.  His  only  rival  in 
brutality  was  Coote  in  the  north.  Inchiquin' s  cruelty, 
however,  was  the  more  indefensible  of  the  two,  for,  as 
head  of  the  O'Briens,  he  was  himself  a  representative  of 
the  old  native  Irish  whom  he  so  ruthlessly  destroyed. 
Coote,  on  the  other  hand,  belonged  to  the  class  of  men 
who  are  called  Irish  when  in  England  and  English  when  in 
Ireland.  He  was  of  pure  Anglo-Saxon  blood,  but  he  had 
been  born  in  Ireland  and  had  spent  most  of  his  life 
there. 

In  September,  as  soon  as  the  Cessation  had  expired, 
Castlehaven  advanced  to  the  attack  of  the  British  forces 
which  had  been  concentrated  at  Dromore  in  expectation 
of  some  such  move.  Warning  was  received  of  his  approach, 
and  an  express  messenger  was  sent  off  to  invoke  the  aid 
of  the  Lagan  Force.  Castlehaven  had  little  military 
skill,  but  he  had  sufficient  sense  not  to  defer  his  attack 
till  Stewart's  men  arrived  on  the  scene.  He  attacked, 
in  fact,  with  such  promptitude  that  Monro — in  spite  of 
his  warning — was  completely  taken  by  surprise.  Captain 
Blair's  troop  of  horse,  which  was  doing  outpost  duty, 
was  surprised  and  very  badly  cut  about  by  the  Irish 
horse,  and  the  commander  himself  was  taken  prisoner. 
Sir  George  Rawdon,  whom  we  now  find  for  the  first  time 
on  the  parliamentary  side,  was  the  first  of  the  British 
to  recover  from  the  surprise  and  to  bring  his  troop  of 
horse  into  action.  He  charged  down  upon  the  Irish 
horse  and,  in  turn,  put  them  to  flight,  but  was  unable  to 
effect  the  rescue  of  Blair,  who  was  carried  off  a  prisoner.1 
The  skirmish  at  Dromore  was  the  tamest  of  endings  to 
the  1644  campaign,  considering  the  magnitude  and  im- 
portance of  the  two  armies  opposed  to  one  another.  Only 
a  few  of  the  cavalry  were  engaged,  and  the  casualties  on 
either  side  were  inappreciable. 

On  the  following  day  the  Lagan  Force  arrived,  and 
Castlehaven  at  once  withdrew  to  Charlemont,  leisurely 
pursued  by  Monro.  Neither  commander  showed  any 
eagerness  to  come  to  close  quarters.  Monro  was  possibly 

1   Relation  of  Col.  O'Neil ;  Warr  of  Ireland. 


1644]          OWEN   ROE   JOINS   CASTLEHAVEN  807 

wise  in  avoiding  battle,  for  he  had  a  surer  means  of  reducing 
his  opponent  to  subjection.  He  took  up  his  quarters  at 
Armagh,  and  by  so  doing  was  enabled  to  intercept  all  the 
supplies  sent  by  Ormonde  for  the  use  of  Castlehaven's  army 
from  Newry,  Dundalk  and  Drogheda.  For  six  weeks  the  two 
armies  remained  in  their  respective  quarters,  almost 
within  sight  of  one  another,  and  yet  without  attempting 
anything  in  the  way  of  a  general  engagement.  At  the 
end  of  three  weeks  the  stoppage  of  supplies,  consequent 
upon  Monro's  position  at  Armagh,  worked  its  effect, 
and  Castlehaven  resolved  on  a  retirement  to  the  south. 
News  of  his  intention  reached  Owen  Roe,  who  was  ill  in 
bed  in  Cavan.  Indignation  brought  him  promptly  from 
his  bed,  and,  getting  his  Ulster  force  together,  he  at  once 
made  his  way  to  Charlemont,  where  he  protested  so 
vehemently  against  the  proposed  retirement  of  the  Leinster 
army  that  it  was  postponed.1  From  that  time  on  Owen 
Roe  remained  with  Castlehaven  at  Charlemont.  He 
was  still  too  ill  to  take  the  field  in  person,  but  he  gave 
Castlehaven  the  full  benefit  of  his  military  experience  and 
local  knowledge.  These  friendly  relations  were,  however, 
not  long  maintained,  and  were  in  the  end  broken  off 
permanently  by  an  unfortunate  incident  which  fell  out 
as  follows  :  Monro  was  in  the  habit  of  sending  out  foraging 
parties  in  the  direction  of  Charlemont,  for  the  double 
purpose  of  increasing  his  own  supplies  and  of  reducing 
those  of  Castlehaven.  In  the  course  of  one  of  these 
expeditions  the  foraging  party  found  its  way  barred  at 
the  Blackwater  ford  by  a  detachment  of  Owen  Roe's 
men.  In  spite  of  the  opposition,  the  British  managed 
to  force  their  way  across  and  to  disperse  the  enemy. 
Several  of  the  Irish  were  killed  during  the  encounter, 
including  Charles  Hovedon  and  Art  Oge  O'Neil.  The 
matter  was  a  small  one  in  itself,  but  it  caused  a  per- 
manent break  between  Castlehaven  and  Owen  Roe, 
for  the  latter  accused  Castlehaven's  second  in-  command, 
Colonel  Fennell,  of  cowardice  and  treachery  in  having 
watched  the  encounter  from  close  by,  where  he  rode 
at  the  head  of  a  number  of  his  own  men,  without 
making  any  attempt  to  render  assistance.*  A  quarrel 
resulted,  which  was  never  subsequently  healed,  and 

1  Richard  Bellings's  Confederation  and  War. 
»  gelation  of  Col.  O'Neil. 


808  THE  SOLEMN  LEAGUE  AND  COVENANT  [CHAP,  vi 

which   extended   beyond   the  person  of  Castlehaven    to 
the  whole  body  of  the  Supreme  Council. 

By  the  middle  of  November  the  Leinster  army  was  on 
the  verge  of  starvation,  and  Castlehaven  was  forced  to 
retire  south  by  way  of  Monaghan  and  Cavan.  The  men, 
we  are  told,  looked  like  ghosts,  and  many  died  of  hunger 
during  the  retreat.1  Castlehaven  and  Owen  Roe  each 
laid  the  blame  of  failure  on  the  other,  and  they  parted 
the  reverse  of  friends. 

1  Aphorismical  Disc. 


CHAPTER    VII 

THE    OXFORD    CONVENTION   OF    1644 

IN  March  1644,  while  the  Cessation  was  in  full  progress, 
a  convention  was  held  at  Oxford  under  the  Presidency  of 
the  King,  with  the  idea,  among  other  things,  of  finding 
some  such  solution  of  the  Irish  problem  as  would  satisfy — 
even  if  it  did  not  reconcile — all  parties.  In  this  Convention 
the  Ulster  Scots  were  represented  by  Sir  William  Stewart 
and  Sir  Francis  Hamilton ;  the  native  Irish  by  Lord 
Muskerry  and  Dermot  O'Brien ;  the  Anglo-Irish  gentry 
of  the  Pale  by  Mr.  Nicholas  Plunkett  and  Sir  Robert 
Talbot;  the  Parliamentary  Party  by  Sir  Charles  Coote 
and  Captain  Michael  Jones,  and  the  Administration  by 
Sir  Gerard  Lowther,  the  Lord  Chief  Justice,  and  Judge 
Donellan. 

Two  petitions,  which  had  been  carefully  drawn  up  in 
advance,  were  presented  to  the  King ;  one  by  Lord 
Muskerry  on  behalf  of  the  native  Irish,  and  the  other 
by  the  Ulster  Scots'  representatives,  with  a  postscript 
added  by  Sir  Charles  Coote.  The  said  postscript,  which 
was  of  a  most  violent  and  extreme  character,  was  personal 
and  not  official,  and  was  repudiated  in  toto  by  the  Ulster 
delegates,  who  denied  that  it  represented  the  wishes  of 
the  majority  of  the  British  in  Ulster,  or  even  in  Ireland. 
The  Irish  demands  were  just  as  extravagant  and  out- 
rageous in  their  way  as  Coote' s  were  in  the  opposite 
direction,  and  it  became  at  once  evident  that  there  was 
no  hope  of  arriving  at  any  settlement  which  would  meet 
the  wishes  of  all  parties. 

The  hopelessness  of  the  Irish  demands  lay  in  the  fact 
that  they  were  based  on  the  flagrant  misrepresentations 
which  had  been  put  forward  in  the  first  and  second  "  Re- 
monstrances "  of  the  Irish  Roman  Catholics.  These 
compositions  had  originally  been  drawn  up  with  a  view 

309 


310      THE   OXFORD   CONVENTION   OF   1644  [CHAP,  vn 

to  enlisting  the  sympathies  of  a  far-away  King  with 
little  knowledge  of  Ireland.  Their  mendacity  was  whole- 
hearted and  thorough.  The  sixth  section  of  the  first 
"  Remonstrance,"  e.g.,  made  the  astounding  statement 
that  "  The  Roman  Catholics  of  this  realm  are  not  admitted 
to  any  dignity,  place  or  office,  either  military  or  civil, 
spiritual  or  temporal "  ;  the  eleventh  section  stated  that 
"  common  justice  and  the  rights  and  privileges  of  Parlia- 
ment are  denied  to  all  the  natives  of  this  realm."  1  Both 
these  statements  were  utterly  false.  There  had,  in  fact, 
been,  at  the  time  when  the  1641  rising  broke  out,  an  actual 
majority  of  Roman  Catholics  in  the  Irish  Parliament. 
We  have  seen  Rory  Maguire  Member  of  Parliament  for 
Enniskillen,  Philip  O'Reilly  Member  of  Parliament  for 
Cavan,  Mulmore  O'Reilly  High  Sheriff  of  the  County, 
and  Tirlough  Oge  Sheriff  of  Armagh.  These  few  names 
are  merely  cited  as  instances  of  native  Irish  Members 
of  Parliament  and  Government  officials  who  have  already 
figured  in  the  pages  of  this  volume  ;  they  represent  a 
mere  fraction  of  the  whole. 

At  Oxford  the  King  was  surrounded  by  men  with  a 
thorough  experience  of  Ireland,  who  were  able  to  enlighten 
him  effectually  as  to  the  fictitious  nature  of  the  majority  of 
grievances  complained  of.  In  the  light  of  this  new  know- 
ledge, Charles  called  for  Lord  Muskerry  and  drew  his  atten- 
tion to  the  flagrant  untruth  of  many  of  the  grievances  set 
out  in  the  petition  and  in  particular  to  the  untruth  of  the 
complaint  that  the  natives  were  not  admitted  to  the 
privileges  of  Parliament  or  of  other  lucrative  offices.2 
Lord  Muskerry  had  no  reply  to  offer,  and  it  was  agreed 
by  all  parties  that  both  the  Irish  and  the  British  petitions 
should  be  withdrawn  and  remodelled.  This  was  done, 
and  the  amended  petitions  were  once  more  submitted 
to  the  King. 

The  new  Irish  demands  were,  in  the  first  instance, 
for  an  Act  of  Oblivion  which  should  wipe  out  of  the  official 
memory  all  the  incidents  connected  with  the  1641  rising. 
To  this,  in  its  entirety,  the  British  representatives  objected, 
urging  that  from  the  benefits  of  any  such  Act  those 
responsible  for  the  massacres  and  the  cruelties  practised 
upon  the  British  should  be  excluded  and  brought  to 
justice.  The  Irish  agreed,  provided  that  all  such  British 

1  Gilbert's  Contemp.  Hist.,  vol.  i.  pt.  2,  p.  450,  a  Carte. 


1644]          NATURE   OF  THE   IRISH  DEMANDS         311 

as  had  practised  cruelties  upon  the  Irish  should  be 
similarly  served.  It  was  pointed  out  to  Lord  Muskerry  that 
this  was  a  wholly  unreasonable  demand,  inasmuch  as  the 
cruelties  practised  upon  the  British  had  been  entirely 
unprovoked,  whereas  those  practised  upon  the  Irish  had 
been  in  the  nature  of  just  retribution  for  atrocities  already 
committed.  No  amount  of  argument  or  explanation, 
however,  could  get  the  Irish  delegates  to  concede  this 
elementary  point,  and  finally  the  King,  wearying  of  a 
debate  in  which  no  vestige  of  progress  was  being  made 
in  any  direction,  agreed  in  desperation  to  sanction  any 
such  Act  of  Oblivion  as  should  be  prepared  and  approved 
by  the  Lord-Lieutenant  and  Privy  Council. 

It  must  be  remembered  that,  in  instructing  Ormonde 
to  agree  to  a  twelve  months'  cessation  of  hostilities,  the 
King  had  been  mainly  influenced  by  a  desire  to  make  use 
of  the  English  royalist  troops  at  the  time  serving  in 
Ireland — and  if  possible  of  some  of  the  Irish  too — against 
the  armies  of  the  Parliament.  Ormonde  had  sent  some 
of  the  English  troops  over,  but  the  10,000  Irish  that  he 
had  hoped  for,  and  indeed  been  promised,  had  not  mater- 
ialised. In  the  belief  that  this  remissness  might  possibly 
be  due,  in  some  part,  to  the  existence  of  supposed  griev- 
ances, Charles  had  summoned  the  Oxford  Convention 
with  the  idea  of  redressing  all  such  legitimate  grievances 
as  kept  the  Irish  disloyal  and  discontented.  If  this  were 
done,  it  was  not  unreasonable  to  hope  that  the  Irish 
troops,  which  he  had  been  promised  as  one  of  the  Cessation 
conditions,  would  be  sent  over.  As  a  mere  matter  of 
self-interest,  then,  it  was  clearly  to  Charles's  advantage 
to  make  every  possible  concession  to  the  demands  of  the 
Irish.  Only  by  so  doing  could  he  hope  to  get  his  Irish 
troops  to  help  him.  The  extreme  unreasonableness, 
however,  of  the  demands  made,  and  the  fictions  on  which 
they  were  for  the  most  part  based,  left  Charles  faced  with 
an  all  but  impossible  task.  It  is  no  easy  matter  to  cancel 
that  which  does  not  exist,  but  Charles  made  the  effort. 
"  In  the  matter  of  the  Penal  Laws,"  he  told  the  delegates, 
"  as  these  have  never  been  exercised  with  any  rigour, 
so,  if  his  recusant  subjects  should,  by  returning  to  their 
duty  and  loyalty,  merit  his  favour  and  protection,  they 
should  not  for  the  future  have  cause  to  complain  that 
less  moderation  was  used  to  them  than  had  been  in  the 


312       THE   OXFORD   CONVENTION   OF   1644  [CHAP,  vii 

most  favourable  times  of  Queen  Elizabeth  or  King  James, 
provided  they  lived  quietly  and  peaceably  according  to 
their  allegiance  ;  and  such  of  them  as  manifested  their 
duty  and  allegiance  to  His  Majesty  should  receive  such 
marks  of  his  favour  in  offices  and  places  of  trust  as  should 
plainly  show  his  good  acceptance  and  regard  of  them." 
He  added  that  "  he  knew  of  no  incapacity  of  natives  to 
purchase  either  lands  or  offices,  but  if  there  were  such  he 
would  willingly  consent — when  all  other  matters  had 
been  concluded — to  remove  it,  and  also  to  the  erection  of 
an  Inns  of  Court  University  and  free  schools."  1  With 
these  and  other  cryptic  promises  of  a  similar  character, 
the  delegates  returned  to  Ireland. 

The  Oxford  Convention  of  1644,  like  many  other  similar 
Conventions  in  years  to  come,  had  arrived  at  no  satisfactory 
solution  of  the  difficulties  in  Ireland.  At  the  King's 
suggestion  its  members  reassembled  in  Dublin  under  the 
Presidency  of  Ormonde,  but  with  no  better  success  than 
before,  and  the  Lord-Lieutenant  had  to  report  failure. 
On  receipt  of  this  report  the  King  wrote  to  Ormonde  that, 
in  view  of  the  extreme  weakness  of  the  British  in  Ireland, 
and  of  the  consequent  impossibility  of  these  maintaining 
themselves  in  a  war  against  the  Irish  without  material 
help  from  England,  which  he  was  not  in  a  position  to  send, 
it  was  desirable  to  make  very  full  concessions  in  order  to 
secure  a  permanent  peace  in  continuation  of  the  Cessation. 
He  therefore  authorised  the  Lord-Lieutenant  to  concede 
practically  any  terms  that  might  seem  necessary,  provided 
there  was  no  relaxation  of  the  Penal  Laws  or  of  Poyning's 
Act.  It  is  of  interest  to  note  that,  in  arriving  at  this 
decision,  the  King  appears  to  have  entirely  ignored  the 
possibility  of  the  British  in  Ireland  receiving  any  help 
from  the  Parliamentary  Party,  nor  in  fact  had  any  such 
help  been  possible  prior  to  the  battle  of  Marston  Moor. 
In  the  preceding  year  the  Parliament  had  definitely 
affirmed  that  "  If  £500  could  save  Ireland  it  could  not  be 
spared,  and  further,  that  they  had  not  time  so  much  as  to 
step  over  the  threshold  for  Ireland."  !  In  1644,  however, 
such  a  possibility  was  far  less  remote. 

As  far  as  Ulster  was  concerned,  the  King's  hopes  of  a 
continuation  of  peace  were  realised,  for  the  year  1645  was 
barren  of  fighting.  The  mental  attitude  of  the  Ulster 
>  Carte,  vol.  i.  p.  507.  8  Ibid.  p.  427. 


1645]      THE  POLITICS   OF  THE   LAGAN   FORCE     313 

garrisons  during  this  year  was  peculiar  and  interesting.  The 
atrocities  of  three  years  before  were  still  sufficiently  recent  to 
fill  all  alike  with  a  burning  hatred  of  the  natives  and  with  a 
corresponding  desire  to  carry  on  a  war  of  devastation  against 
them  ;  but  whether  they  did  so  under  the  banner  of  King 
or  Parliament  was  to  them  a  matter  of  complete  indif- 
ference. They  were  willing  to  serve  any  British  master 
who  was  in  a  position  to  pay  for  their  services.  It  was  in 
the  minds  of  none  that  the  banner  under  which  they  served 
could  ever  prove  more  than  a  mere  formal  badge  of  alle- 
giance. So  far,  the  British  Royalists  and  the  British 
Parliamentarians  in  Ulster,  though  constantly  intriguing 
to  secure  the  possession  of  strongholds  which  were  in  the 
hands  of  the  other  party,  had  too  many  interests  in  common 
to  be  serious  enemies.  Another  four  years  were  to  elapse 
before  British  fought  with  British  in  Ireland.  The  acute 
question  in  army  circles  in  the  year  1645  was  the  question 
of  food,  pay  and  clothing,  and  so  long  as  these  were  forth- 
coming it  seemed  to  matter  little  what  temporary  label 
was  attached  to  the  recipients.  It  appears  to  be  tolerably 
certain  that  the  Lagan  Force  had  been  induced  to  take  to 
the  Covenant  less  by  the  eloquence  of  the  members  of  the 
mission  than  by  the  knowledge  that  Monro  had  been  pro- 
mised a  very  substantial  grant  of  money  and  clothing  from 
Scotland.  When,  however,  it  was  found  that  Monro 
retained  all  these  good  things  for  the  use  of  the  troops 
under  his  immediate  eye,  and  that  none  of  them  found 
their  way  west  of  the  Bann,  there  was  a  general  tendency 
among  the  members  of  the  Lagan  Force  to  revert  to  their 
former  allegiance  to  the  King.  Sir  Robert  Stewart,  their 
popular  leader,  was  still  immovably  royalistic,  and  the 
real  sympathies  of  many  of  the  rank  and  file  were  in  the 
same  direction.  They  were  willing  to  become  Parliamen- 
tarians if  the  Parliament  paid  them  and  the  King  did  not, 
but  if  neither  party  paid  them  they  preferred  to  be  Royalists. 
A  careful  consideration  of  the  circumstances  convinced 
the  officers  of  the  Lagan  Force  that  it  would  be  desirable 
to  make  this  delicate  position,  and  the-  possibilities  that 
lay  behind  it,  quite  clear  to  the  parliamentary  executive. 
They  accordingly  drew  up  a  suitable  memorandum  (which 
was  also  very  little  removed  from  an  ultimatum)  which 
made  it  quite  clear  that  the  Parliament  must  pay  them  if 
they  wished  to  retain  their  services.  This  memorandum  was 


814      THE  OXFORD  CONVENTION  OF  1644  [CHAP,  vn 

duly  despatched  to  the  Parliament  in  London,  and  in  time 
produced  its  effect,  but  for  a  considerable  period  no  reply 
of  a  suitable  nature  was  received,  and  Ormonde  took  ad- 
vantage of  the  situation  in  order  to  try,  by  every  known 
artifice,  to  win  over  the  Lagan  Force  to  his  party.  He 
was  not  in  a  position,  however,  to  offer  them  the  sub- 
stantial argument  of  pay,  and — in  the  absence  of  this — 
they  declared  their  intention  of  retaining  their  liberty  of 
action  as  an  independent  force.  Ormonde's  disappoint- 
ment at  failing  to  win  over  this  redoubtable  corps  was 
acute,  as  it  well  might  be,  for  Carte  tells  us  that  at  this 
time  the  Lagan  Force  "  was  certainly  the  best  in  the  whole 
kingdom."  l 

The  memorandum  of  the  Lagan  Force  was  not  produc- 
tive of  any  immediate  response  from  the  Parliament,  but 
it  set  that  august  body  thinking,  and— taken  in  conjunction 
with  Ormonde's  overtures  for  the  capture  of  the  Stewarts 
and  their  men — it  seemed  to  point  to  the  conclusion  that  it 
was  no  longer  safe  to  defer  sending  a  certain  amount  of  money 
to  Ulster.  Any  doubts  on  the  subject  which  might  have 
remained  in  their  minds  were  finally  removed  by  a  very 
definite  and  disturbing  display  of  independence  on  the  part 
of  the  Lagan  Force  itself.  The  incident  was  a  small  one, 
but  it  showed  with  sufficient  clearness  which  way  the  wind 
was  blowing.  Sir  Charles  Coote  had  recently  been  appointed 
Governor  of  Connaught,  and,  on  the  strength  of  this  ap- 
pointment, he  issued  an  order  to  the  Lagan  Force  to  place 
itself  under  his  command  for  the  purpose  of  an  attack  on 
the  town  of  Sligo,  which  he  contemplated  making  in  con- 
junction with  Sir  Francis  Hamilton  of  Keilagh.  The 
leaders  of  the  Lagan  Force,  who  saw  no  reason  to  recognise 
the  authority  of  the  Connaught  President,  refused  to  move 
in  the  matter  unless  their  arrears  of  pay  were  first  forth- 
coming. This,  at  the  moment,  was  an  impossibility,  and, 
as  the  expedition  was  impossible  without  the  Lagan  Force, 
a  deadlock  ensued.  Finally,  however,  Sir  Robert  Stewart 
yielded  to  a  solemn  undertaking  on  the  part  of  the  parlia- 
mentary representatives  that  the  requirements  of  the  Force 
would  be  met,  and  on  June  16,  1645,  the  three  regiments 
commanded  by  the  two  Stewarts  and  Colonel  Saunderson, 
marched  to  Augher,  which  had  been  fixed  upon  as  the 
rendezvous  of  the  forces  destined  for  Connaught.  Coote, 

1  Parte,  vol.  i.  p.  532. 


1645]  DEFEAT   OF  TAAFE   AT   SLIGO  315 

Hamilton  and  the  three  Lagan  Force  leaders  then  advanced 
upon  Sligo,  which  was  easily  captured,  and  in  which  Stewart 
left  Colonel  Saunderson's  regiment  as  a  garrison.  The 
rest  of  the  force,  driving  before  them  a  large  herd  of 
Connaught  cattle,  returned  to  Newtownstewart,  where 
Stewart  temporarily  dismissed  his  men  to  their  homes. 
Coote  and  Hamilton  continued  their  advance  into  the 
heart  of  Connaught,  capturing  all  the  Castles  and  strong- 
holds as  they  went.  They  were  too  weak,  however,  effec- 
tively to  garrison  the  places  they  captured. 

Clanricarde  complained  bitterly  to  Ormonde  of  Coote' s 
action  in  invading  Connaught,  which  he  claimed  was  un- 
constitutional inasmuch  as  it  had  not  been  authorised  by 
the  Lord-Lieutenant,  and  which  had,  in  addition,  robbed 
him  of  many  of  his  best  cattle.  Ormonde  was  little  less 
indignant  than  Clanricarde,  and,  in  order  to  mark  his  dis- 
approval, he  wrote  authorising  Taafe  to  raise  a  local  army 
and  drive  the  invaders  out  of  Connaught. 

This  letter  marks  the  beginning  of  a  new  epoch  in  the 
history  of  the  country,  for  it  was  the  first  time  that  Or- 
monde or  indeed  any  other  Lord-Lieutenant,  had  issued  an 
authority  to  the  native  Irish  to  attack  the  British.  Lord 
Taafe,  with  the  assistance  of  Clanricarde  and  the  titular 
Bishop  of  Tuam,  got  together  a  sufficient  army  of  Munster 
and  Connaught  men,  which  at  first  met  with  uninterrupted 
success.  It  commenced  well  by  capturing  Tulske  from 
Captain  Ormsby  on  August  13.  All  the  other  Castles  in 
Connaught  captured  and  occupied  by  Coote  were  then 
successfully  recaptured,  till  the  town  of  Sligo  was  reached. 
Here  the  victorious  career  of  Taafe' s  army  was  checked, 
for  Colonel  Saunderson's  regiment  successfully  resisted 
all  attempts  at  capturing  the  town.  Taafe  and  his  army 
then  sat  down  outside  the  walls,  and  the  siege  continued 
till  October  26,  when  Sir  Francis  Hamilton  and  Colonel 
Richard  Coote  came  to  its  relief.  On  seeing  the  approach 
of  the  relief  column,  Saunderson  sallied  out  from  the  town 
and — in  co-operation  with  Coote  and  Hamilton — completely 
routed  the  besieging  army.  All  Taafe' s  colours  and  drums 
were  lost ;  48  officers  were  taken  prisoner,1  and  large 
quantities  of  cattle  belonging  to  the  Irish  army  were 
captured.  The  most  important  incident,  however,  in 

1  Whitelocke,  Memorials,  p.  187  ;  Carte,  vol.  i.  p.  535;  Hibernia  Angli- 
cana. 


316       THE   OXFORD   CONVENTION   OF   1644  [CHAP,  vn 

connection  with  the  relief  of  Sligo  was  the  death  of  the 
titular  Bishop  of  Tuam,  who  was  killed  by  a  chance  bullet 
while  in  full  retreat.  The  importance  of  his  death  lay 
in  the  fact  that  on  his  body  was  found  the  text  of  a  Treaty 
between  the  King  and  the  Supreme  Council  of  Confederate 
Catholics,  signed  by  the  Earl  of  Glamorgan  on  behalf 
of  Charles,  the  subject  matter  of  which  caused  a  very 
considerable  stir  in  both  English  and  Irish  political 
circles. 

The  Parliament  did  not  go  back  on  its  undertaking  to 
deal  promptly  with  the  question  of  the  arrears  of  pay  due 
to  the  Lagan  Force.  At  the  beginning  of  October — shortly 
before  the  Sligo  victory — £10,000  and  a  quantity  of  cloth 
and  provisions  were  sent  over  for  distribution  among  the 
British  forces  in  the  north.  With  a  clear  recollection  of 
the  way  in  which  Monro  had  retained  all  the  money  sent 
from  Scotland  for  the  use  of  his  own  troops,  the  Parliament 
sent  the  new  supplies  over  in  charge  of  a  committee  com- 
posed of  Sir  Robert  King,  Colonel  Beal,  and  Mr.  Arthur 
Annesley,  whose  discretion  in  the  matter  of  distribution — 
as  well  as  in  certain  other  matters — was  final  and  absolute. 
The  committee  was  well  aware  of  Ormonde's  endeavours 
to  secure  the  co-operation  of  the  Lagan  Force,  and,  recog- 
nising that  the  loss  of  this  corps'  services  would  be  an 
irreparable  blow  to  the  interests  of  the  Parliament  in  the 
north,  took  good  care  that  a  fair  proportion  of  the  £10,000 
was  allotted  to  the  troops  on  the  west  side  of  the  Foyle. 
It  is  of  interest  to  note  that  this  grant — amounting  to  no 
more  than  eight  months'  pay — was  the  only  payment  from 
any  source  which  was  destined  to  find  its  way  into  the 
pockets  of  the  Lagan  Force  during  the  entire  nine  years  that 
it  continued  on  active  service.1  As  a  propitiatory  offering 
the  effect  of  the  grant  was  a  good  deal  marred  by  the  action 
of  the  committee  in  deposing  Audley  Mervyn  from  the 
Governorship  of  Derry — a  post  which  he  had  now  held  for 
little  more  than  a  year.  This  ill-judged  and  short-sighted 
act  was  mainly  brought  about  by  the  active  hostility  of 
Sir  Frederick  Hamilton,  who  had  for  some  years  coveted 
the  Governorship  for  himself,  and  who  now  sought  to 
attain  his  ambition  by  enlarging  on  Audley  Mervyn' s 
concealed  royalist  tendencies.8  Audley  Mervyn  was  re- 
moved, but  Hamilton  missed  his  mark,  for  the  new 

1  Whitelocke,  Memorials,  p.  44.  *  Carte,  vol,  i.  p.  533. 


1645]  COL.  MERVYN  AND  LORD  CONWAY  DEPOSED  317 

Governor  selected  by  the  committee  was  Lord  Folliott, 
hitherto  associated  with  the  defence  of  Ballyshannon. 

The  action  of  the  committee  in  removing  Audley  Mervyn 
caused  much  dissatisfaction  among  the  members  of  the 
Lagan  Force  with  whom  the  late  Governor  was  immensely 
popular,  but  it  caused  nothing  approaching  the  stir  which 
was  aroused  by  the  simultaneous  removal  of  Lord  Conway 
from  the  command  of  his  own  regiment  at  Lisburn.  Con- 
way  was  a  commander  of  very  mediocre  ability.  His 
defeat  by  the  Scots  at  Newburn  on  the  Tyne  had  been  an 
ignominious  affair  which  reflected  littlecred  it  on  his 
generalship.  All  the  successes  of  his  regiment  in  Ulster 
had  been  achieved  under  the  leadership  either  of  Colonel 
Conway  (Lord  Con  way's  son),  Sir  George  Rawdon  or  Sir 
Theophilus  Jones.  At  the  same  time,  the  regiment  was 
composed  very  largely  of  Lord  Con  way's  own  tenants  from 
the  neighbourhood  of  Lisburn,  whose  loyalty  very  deeply 
resented  the  action  of  the  committee  in  deposing  him. 
Lord  Blayney,  who  was  nominated  in  his  place,  had  a  most 
unfavourable  reception.  The  members  of  the  regiment 
elected  Jones  as  their  Colonel,  and  for  a  time  a  mutiny 
was  imminent.  In  the  end  the  committee — though 
refusing  to  reinstate  Lord  Conway — effected  a  compromise 
by  nominating  Colonel  Conway  as  the  successor  to  his 
father  in  the  command  of  the  Lisburn  regiment. 


CHAPTER    VIII 

GLAMORGAN'S  MISSION  TO  IRELAND 

THE  year  1645 — though  uninteresting  from  the  military 
point  of  view — was  remarkable  for  the  arrival  in  Ireland  of 
two  men  whose  appearance  on  the  scene  was  destined  to 
cause  considerable  political  commotion,  and  finally  to  bring 
about  an  entire  readjustment  of  all  party  boundaries. 

After  the  failure  of  the  Oxford  Convention  of  1644,  a 
second  attempt  to  arrive  at  an  amicable  understanding 
had  been  made  by  the  King's  desire  in  Dublin,  but  had 
met  with  no  better  success.  This  second  failure  made 
it  clear  to  the  King  that  it  was  hopeless  to  attempt  to 
arrive  at  any  settlement  which  was  in  the  nature  of  a  com- 
promise. He  accordingly  wrote  to  Ormonde  instructing 
him  to  abandon  all  attempts  at  bargaining,  and  to  make 
peace  on  any  terms  he  could.  It  is  doubtful  whether 
Ormonde  could  have  carried  out  these  instructions,  even 
had  he  been  so  inclined.  Only  a  very  small  proportion 
of  the  British  military  forces  in  Ireland  admitted  his 
right  to  command  them.  Monro  was  professedly  parlia- 
mentarian. Inchiquin  in  the  south,  embittered  by  his 
loss  of  the  Presidency  of  Munster,  was  on  the  eve  of 
declaring  for  the  Parliament,  and  was  certainly  not  in  a 
mood  to  be  controlled  by  Ormonde,  while  the  Lagan 
Force  refused  to  accept  orders  from  anyone  who  did 
not  establish  the  right  to  command  by  providing  pay. 
This  last  was  beyond  Ormonde's  power.  All  that  he  was 
in  a  position  to  do  was  to  conclude  a  peace  which  would 
bind  the  royalist  British  in  Ireland  not  to  molest  the 
Irish  further,  and  this  was  a  form  of  peace  which  would 
have  had  little  or  no  value  for  the  Supreme  Council  and 
those  they  represented.  The  King,  who  only  half 
understood  the  situation  in  Ireland,  cared  little  at  the 
moment  about  any  of  these  things  so  long  as  he  could 

318 


1645]  GLAMORGAN'S  APPOINTMENT  319 

get  troops  to  fight  his  battles  for  him,  and  he  exhibited 
no  little  impatience  at  Ormonde's  failure,  which  he  attri- 
buted— with  some  measure  of  truth — to  the  fact  that  the 
Lord-Lieutenant  was  a  Protestant.  There  can  be  little 
doubt — though  the  point  is  not  established  by  documentary 
evidence — that,  during  the  Oxford  Convention,  the  King 
had  secretly  consulted  the  Roman  Catholic  delegates 
from  Ireland  as  to  the  best  course  which  he  could  adopt 
in  order  to  induce  the  Supreme  Council  to  send  him  over 
the  10,000  troops  which  they  had  originally  undertaken 
to  send,  and  of  which  he  was  in  such  desperate  need. 
It  is  also  quite  clear  that,  in  the  solution  put  forward  by 
the  Roman  Catholic  delegates,  the  Protestant  Lord- 
Lieutenant  played  no  part,  for  Charles  at  once  began 
to  cast  about  for  some  representative  who  would  more 
appropriately  answer  the  requirements  of  the  Irish.  His 
choice  fell  on  Edward  Somerset,  Lord  Herbert,  a  zealous 
Catholic  and  the  eldest  son  of  the  Marquis  of  Worcester. 
It  is  doubtful  whether  any  better  selection  could  have 
been  made  in  all  the  circumstances.  Herbert  seems  to 
have  been  a  man  of  very  exceptional  character;  his 
devotion  and  unshakable  loyalty  to  his  royal  master — some- 
times under  very  trying  circumstances — was  so  remarkable 
as  to  stamp  him  as  a  man  whose  constancy  was  altogether 
out  of  the  common.  His  mental  attainments  in  many 
varied  directions  were  of  a  high  order,  and  he  had  an 
attractive  and  lovable  personality.  As  a  military  leader 
he  had  at  no  time  proved  a  success,  though  he  and  his 
father  had  ungrudgingly  given  all  they  had  to  give  in  the 
service  of  the  King. 

That  Herbert  was  selected  as  the  King's  emissary  to 
Ireland,  even  while  Ormonde  was  still  negotiating  on 
similar  lines,  is  made  tolerably  certain  by  Herbert's 
magnanimous  admission  made  many  years  later,  when  the 
terms  of  the  extraordinary  patent  granted  him  by  Charles  I 
were  discussed  in  the  House  of  Lords.  Herbert  frankly 
admitted,  on  that  occasion,  that  all  the  honours  and 
privileges  conferred  on  him  had  been  "  in  consideration 
of  services  to  be  performed,"  and,  as  he  had  failed  to 
perform  those  services,  he  waived  his  right  to  any  consider- 
ation in  respect  of  them.  The  patent  was  accordingly 
cancelled,  as  would  indeed  have  been  necessary  in  any 
case,  for  it  conferred  on  Herbert  greater  honours  and 

22 


320    GLAMORGAN'S  MISSION  TO  IRELAND  [CHAP,  vm 

powers  than  have  ever  been  conferred  on  any  subject 
in  any  country.  He  was  created  Earl  of  Glamorgan, 
and — in  spite  of  his  failures  in  the  field — was  made  General- 
issimo of  all  the  British  forces  in  England,  Ireland  or 
France  (no  doubt  in  order  to  facilitate  the  operation  of 
sending  over  Irish  troops).  He  was  made  an  Admiral 
of  the  Fleet  and  a  Knight  of  the  Garter ;  he  was  em- 
powered to  ennoble  anyone  whom  he  wished  up  to  the 
rank  of  Marquis,  and  to  mortgage  the  Crown  Lands  for 
any  amount  he  might  think  proper.  His  eldest  son  was 
guaranteed  the  Dukedom  of  Somerset  and  the  hand  of 
the  Princess  Elizabeth,  with  a  dowry  of  £300, 000. 1 

The  document  setting  out  these  astonishing  terms 
was  signed  by  Charles  on  the  appropriate  date  of  April 
1,  1644.  It  bears  evidence  on  its  surface  of  the  desperate 
extremities  to  which  the  King  was  at  that  moment  driven 
by  the  storm-clouds  gathering  on  the  horizon.  The 
Scots  had  by  this  time  definitely  joined  the  Parliament 
against  the  King,  and  behind  both,  and  far  more  menacing 
than  either,  loomed  the  grim  shadow  of  the  Independent 
Party,  with  Oliver  Cromwell  at  its  head. 

It  is  probable  that  in  return  for  the  semi-royal  state 
conferred  upon  him  it  was  hoped  that  Glamorgan — as 
we  may  now  call  him — would  succeed  in  obtaining  armed 
assistance  for  Charles,  not  only  from  Ireland,  but  from 
the  Roman  Catholics  of  France  and  Spain  as  well.  In 
the  matter  of  Ireland,  it  is  quite  clear  that  the  King, 
in  his  desperation,  was  prepared  to  go  to  any  lengths 
provided  he  could  get  men  and  money  in  return.  Ormonde, 
as  a  Protestant,  was  not  prepared  to  go  to  these  lengths, 
and  Glamorgan  was  accordingly  substituted.  "  If  upon 
necessity,"  the  King  wrote  in  his  final  instructions  to 
Glamorgan  on  January  2,  1645,  "  anything  has  to  be 
condescended  unto,  and  yet  the  Lord  Marquis  not  willing 
to  be  seen  therein,  or  not  fit  for  us  at  present  publicly 
to  own,  do  you  endeavour  to  supply  the  same." 

Charles — as  has  already  been  said — signed  the  original 
patent  on  April  1,  1644.  The  royal  fortunes  from  that 
time  had  begun  to  improve,  and  for  the  next  few  months 
appeared  so  favourable  that  Glamorgan's  mission  to  Ireland 
was  postponed,  in  the  hopes  that  in  the  meanwhile  Ormonde 
might  be  able  to  arrange  some  peace  which  would  appear 

1  Collins's  Peerage,  1779,  vol.  i.  p.  206. 


1645]   THE  KING'S  INTRIGUES  WITH  THE  IRISH    321 

less  criminally  insane  in  the  public  eye.  This  policy  was 
practically  forced  upon  the  King  by  the  intensity  of 
public  feeling.  The  royal  negotiations  with  the  Irish 
rebels  (as  they  were  still  called)  were  fully  known  in 
England,  and  the  knowledge  had  aroused  a  general  feeling 
of  disgust.  The  English  mind,  in  its  then  state,  was 
unable  to  discriminate  between  the  blood-thirsty  assassins 
who  had  been  guilty  of  unprovoked  massacres  in  1641 
and  the  Supreme  Council  of  Confederate  Catholics  which 
was  the  representative  Irish  body  in  1644.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  there  was  an  immeasurable  gulf  between  the  two. 
The  Supreme  Council,  and  those  they  represented,  were 
not  rebels,  either  technically  or  in  practice,  and  were, 
in  point  of  fact,  little  less  hostile  to  those  responsible  for 
the  1641  massacres  than  were  the  English  or  the  Scots. 
The  distinction,  however,  was  too  subtle  for  the  public 
mind  of  the  moment,  and  both  alike  were  placarded  as 
rebels  and  execrated  as  perpetrators  of  anti-British 
massacres.  The  discovery  of  Charles's  negotiation  with 
these  supposed  assassins  did  more  than  any  of  his  pre-war 
tyrannies  and  impositions  to  alienate  the  sympathies  of 
his  subjects.  Hundreds  of  his  officers  threw  up  their 
commissions,  and  his  former  adherents  among  the  lower 
orders  began  to  desert  his  standard  in  flocks.  Prince 
Rupert's  astonishing  successes  in  the  field  for  the  moment 
filled  the  King  with  the  hope  that  he  might  yet  win  through 
to  victory  without  the  help  of  the  Irish,  and,  in  the  hope 
of  escaping  the  odium  which  attached  to  the  Irish  alliance, 
Glamorgan's  mission  was  temporarily  abandoned.  Then 
in  July  came  Marston  Moor  with  the  overwhelming  defeat 
of  the  hitherto  invincible  Rupert.  Even  in  the  face  of  this 
disaster  the  King  did  not  entirely  despair.  It  was  the  first 
reverse  that  his  nephew  had  so  far  sustained,  and  it  was 
not  unreasonable  to  hope  that  it  might  be  the  last.  For 
eight  months  more  Glamorgan  remained  in  England. 
In  March  1645  he  made  an  attempt  to  reach  Ireland, 
but  contrary  gales  drove  him  back,  and  he  returned  to 
Skipton  Castle,  where  he  remained  for  three  months ; 
from  which  it  might  be  inferred  that  Charles  saw  the 
finger  of  God  in  the  opposing  gales  and  bowed  to  the 
omen.  In  June,  however,  the  fatal  battle  of  Naseby 
made  it  plain  to  the  King  that  nothing  could  save  him 
but  the  intervention  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  and  Glamor- 


322  GLAMORGAN'S  MISSION  TO  IRELAND  [CHAP,  vm 

gan  was  ordered  to  sail  at  once  for  Ireland,  where  he 
landed  at  the  end  of  the  month. 

In  the  same  month  in  which  Glamorgan  first  attempted 
to  reach  Ireland,  Richard  Bellings,  Vice-President  of  the 
Supreme  Council  of  Confederate  Catholics,  set  out  from 
Ireland  for  Rome  in  an  endeavour  to  bring  back  with 
him  a  Papal  Nuncio  who  should  be  armed  with  sufficient 
religious  powers  to  consolidate  into  one  homogeneous 
body  all  the  contending  Roman  Catholic  parties  in  Ireland. 
The  person  selected  for  this  delicate  undertaking  was  one 
Giovanni  Rinuccini,  who — we  are  given  to  understand — 
had  little  liking  for  the  task  assigned  him,  and  made 
many  endeavours  to  exchange  his  allotted  mission  for 
one  to  France,  but  without  success.  Rinuccini,  who 
brought  with  him  £60, 000, l  of  which  Cardinal  Mazarin 
had  supplied  no  less  than  half,  arrived  in  Ireland  on 
October  23,  1645,  exactly  four  years  to  a  day  after  the 
outbreak  of  the  rising.  His  arrival  might  have  resulted 
in  a  simplification  of  the  situation  but  for  the  fact 
that  Glamorgan,  acting  on  his  instructions,  had  in  the 
meanwhile  concluded  a  peace  with  the  Supreme  Council 
by  the  terms  of  which  the  Irish  Roman  Catholics — 
in  consideration  of  supplying  the  King  with  an  army 
of  10,000 — were  to  be  granted  every  conceivable  privilege 
to  which  their  imagination  could  aspire.8  Most  unfor- 
tunately for  Charles  and  his  projects,  the  Archbishop 
of  Tuam  had  this  document  in  his  pocket  when  a  chance 
bullet  laid  him  low  outside  the  walls  of  Sligo.  Coote — 
as  in  duty  bound—  forwarded  the  paper  to  his  masters 
in  the  English  Parliament,  who  indignantly  confronted 
the  King  with  the  contents. 

It  is  difficult  to  over-estimate  the  sensation  which 
such  an  announcement  would  arouse  in  the  middle  of  the 
seventeenth  century.  The  Cavalier  nobles  who  supported 
Charles's  cause  with  their  money  and  the  lives  of  themselves 
and  their  retainers  were  for  the  most  part  men  of  indeter- 
minate religious  views,  but  the  middle  and  lower  classes 
of  England  were,  at  the  moment,  in  the  grip  of  an  anti- 
Catholic  frenzy  before  which  the  Glamorgan  Treaty  would 
have  appeared  as  an  unspeakable  abomination.  In 
Ireland  the  effect  of  the  exposure  would  have  been  still 
worse  :  for  even  the  most  ardent  Royalists,  such  as  Lord 

1  Friar  O'Mellan.  *  Confederation  and  War,  vol.  v.  p.  67. 


1645]       CHARLES   REPUDIATES   GLAMORGAN         323 

Conway,  Sir  Robert  Stewart  and  Theophilus  Jones  were, 
before  all  else,  rigid  Protestants,  whose  religious  scruples, 
no  less  than  their  material  interests,  would  have  been 
sacrificed  by  the  terms  of  the  Glamorgan  Treaty. 

In  the  face  of  a  threatened  exposure,  which  would 
have  alienated  half  his  supporters,  Charles,  without 
hesitation,  followed  the  line  of  least  resistance,  and  coolly 
repudiated  the  unfortunate  Glamorgan  and  all  the 
pledges  he  had  given  under  his  extraordinary  commission. 
Lord  Digby  was  sent  over  to  Ireland  to  announce,  on  the 
King's  behalf,  that  his  envoy  had  grievously  misinterpreted 
his  instructions,  and,  at  Digby' s  instigation,  Glamorgan 
was  arrested  and  imprisoned  on  December  26.  Six  days 
prior  to  his  arrest,  however,  Glamorgan,  still  full  of  zeal 
for  his  religion  and  his  King,  and  with  no  premonition  of 
the  back-handed  blow  which  he  was  about  to  receive  from 
the  latter,  had  concluded  a  second  treaty  with  Rinuccini 
which  went  even  further — if  possible — than  the  first. 
In  his  eagerness  to  disavow  any  responsibility  for  this 
second  treaty,  Charles  actually  went  so  far  as  to  declare 
that  Glamorgan  had  assumed  his  title  without  authority, 
and  had  forged  the  commission  which  empowered  him  to 
act  in  the  King's  name.  "  He  is  no  peer  of  this  realm," 
Charles  informed  the  world,  "  notwithstanding  he  so 
styles  himself,  and  hath  treated  with  the  rebels  of  Ireland 
by  the  name  of  Earl  of  Glamorgan,  which  is  as  vainly 
taken  upon  him  as  his  pretended  warrant,  if  such  there  be, 
was  surreptitiously  gotten."  In  private  correspondence, 
however,  the  King  continued  to  address  his  envoy  affec- 
tionately as  Glamorgan,  pleading  the  force  of  circum- 
stances as  an  excuse  for  his  assumed  attitude.  Glamorgan 
was  only  kept  in  prison  a  month.  After  his  release  he 
ceased  to  play  any  important  part  in  Irish  politics.  He 
came  more  and  more  under  the  influence  of  Rinuccini, 
who  did  with  him  as  he  would ;  but  he  had  no  follow- 
ing of  his  own  and  he  gradually  disappeared  from 
public  view.  At  the  end  of  1646  he  succeeded  to  the 
title  of  Marquis  of  Worcester,  upon  the  death  of  his 
father,  and  shortly  afterwards  he  left  Ireland  for  France. 


CHAPTER    IX 

OWEN   ROE'S   RUPTURE   WITH   THE   SUPREME   COUNCIL 

BY  the  spring  of  1646  Owen  Roe's  men  had  made  them- 
selves astonishingly  unpopular  in  the  counties  of  Meath, 
Westmeath  and  Longford.  Driven  out  of  Ulster  by  the 
desolation  of  their  own  province,  and  furnished  with  no 
funds  by  the  executive  body  at  Kilkenny,  they  had 
established  themselves  in  the  northern  part  of  Leinster, 
where  they  ravaged  the  country  and  the  country  people 
as  pitilessly  as  any  of  the  old  bonachts  in  the  days  of 
Hugh,  Earl  of  Tyrone.  "No  Tartars,"  the  Nuncio 
wrote  to  thex  Pope,  "  ever  committed  worse  ravages 
than  these  soldiers  of  Owen  Roe  did."1  The  victims  of 
these  ravages  were  not,  as  might  be  supposed,  the  intruding 
foreign  colonists,  but  the  native  Irish  whose  cause  Owen 
Roe  was  by  way  of  championing,  and  these  complained 
so  bitterly  to  the  Supreme  Council  of  the  miseries  inflicted 
on  them  that,  at  one  time,  that  distinguished  body  actually 
threatened  to  take  up  arms  against  Owen  Roe  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  British.8  It  is  quite  clear  that  Owen  Roe 
himself  was  fully  alive  to,  and  deeply  ashamed  of,  the 
outrages  committed  by  his  men,  for,  in  addressing  them 
afterwards,  before  the  battle  of  Benburb,  he  exhorted 
them,  by  fighting  staunchly,  to  make  the  only  reparation 
in  their  power  for  "  the  many  extortions  you  committed 
in  Leinster,  with  the  curses  of  poor  and  widows  which 
cried  against  you  before  God  Almighty."  J 

While  the  Supreme  Council  was  deliberating  what 
steps  they  should  take  in  the  matter,  the  Nuncio  came 
forward  with  the  suggestion  that,  in  view  of  Castlehaven's 
poor  display  two  years  before,  they  should  once  more 
give  Owen  Roe  a  chance,  and  appoint  him  Commander- 
in-Chief  in  Ulster,  a  step  which,  he  pointed  out,  would  have 

i  Rinuccini's  Memoirs,  fol.  1189.  *  Carte,  vol.i.  p.  676. 

3  Aphoriumwal  Disc.,  p.  112. 

324 


1646]     OWEN  ROE  REINSTATED  IN  COMMAND     325 

the  double  effect  of  propitiating  Owen  Roe  and  of  relieving 
Leinster  of  his  piratical  army.  This  suggestion  was  agreed 
to.  Owen  Roe  was  appointed  Captain- General  of  all  the 
Irish  forces  in  Ulster,  and  was  supplied  with  such  funds 
and  provisions  as,  it  was  hoped,  would  not  only  save  him 
from  the  necessity  of  plundering  his  own  fellow-country- 
men, but  would  also  put  him  in  a  position  to  undertake 
an  offensive  against  the  British  troops  in  the  north. 
Nothing  could  have  been  more  in  accordance  with  Owen 
Roe's  own  wishes.  He  was  now  once  more  in  good  health 
and  burning  with  anxiety  to  atone  for  his  previous  reverses. 
In  accordance  with  one  of  the  stipulations  of  the  Supreme 
Council,  Owen  Roe's  first  step  was  to  withdraw  his  army 
into  Cavan,  which  was  within  his  legitimate  jurisdiction. 
Here  he  spent  seven  weeks  in  utilising  the  funds  which 
had  been  placed  at  his  disposal  in  getting  together  an  army 
of  sufficient  strength  for  the  undertaking  he  had  in  con- 
templation, and  in  subjecting  his  new  recruits  to  a  rigorous 
and  necessary  drill. 

At  the  beginning  of  June  Owen  Roe  determined  that 
his  army  was  fit  for  active  service,  and  he  advanced  as 
far  as  Glasslough.  On  receipt  of  this  news  Monro  moved 
out  of  Carrickfergus  with  his  "  New  Scots "  army,  and 
called  on  the  local  commanders  to  join  him  with  their 
territorial  forces.  To  this  appeal — in  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  invading  force  was  a  native  Irish  one — Royalists 
as  well  as  Parliamentarians  responded,  and  the  combined 
army  made  a  forced  march  to  Armagh,  where  Owen  Roe 
was  falsely  reported  to  be  encamped.  A  messenger  was 
at  the  same  time  despatched  to  Monro' s  nephew,  Sir 
George  Monro,  who  was  at  Coleraine,  bidding  him  make 
his  way  to  Armagh  without  delay,  and  there  join  the 
Carrickfergus  army  with  all  the  forces  he  could  raise. 
Another  messenger  was  sent  to  Sir  Robert  Stewart  ordering 
him  to  march  the  Lagan  Force  into  Connaught  with  a 
view  to  making  a  diversion  in  that  direction. 

Monro  marched  his  army  hard  throughout  the  day  and 
the  greater  part  of  the  night  of  June  4,  but  on  his  arrival 
at  Armagh  at  midnight  on  the  4th  he  learned  that  Owen 
Roe  had  not  yet  crossed  the  Blackwater  and  was  encamped 
at  Benburb.  There  could  be  no  doubt  that  Monro' s 
proper  course,  in  the  altered  circumstances,  would  have 
been  to  have  marched  his  army  north  again  till  he  had 


326    ROE'S  RUPTURE  WITH  THE  COUNCIL    [CHAP,  ix 

formed  a  junction  with  his  nephew,  and  then  for  the 
combined  forces  to  have  attacked  Owen  Roe.  Instead 
of  so  doing,  however,  he  sent  a  messenger  to  Sir  George 
instructing  him  to  meet  him  at  Benburb  instead  of  at 
Armagh,  and,  in  order  to  prevent  Owen  Roe  from  getting 
between  him  and  his  expected  reinforcements,  he  com- 
menced a  second  forced  march  to  Benburb  at  daybreak  on 
the  5th,  without  giving  his  troops  any  time  for  rest  or  sleep. 
Monro  marched  all  day  and  arrived  in  the  evening  at 
Benburb,  where  he  found  the  bridges  and  ford  in  the 
possession  of  the  enemy,  and  so  strongly  held  that  he 
determined  to  march  round  by  way  of  Kinard.  This  he 
was  able  to  accomplish  without  opposition.  On  reaching 
the  far  side  of  the  river,  Monro — contrary  to  the  advice 
of  all  his  officers,  who  urged  him  to  give  his  army  time  to 
rest — determined  to  attack  forthwith.  He  made  the 
fatal  mistake  of  despising  his  enemies,  whose  fighting 
capacity  he  greatly  underrated  on  account  of  the  poor 
show  that  they  had  made  two  years  before  under  Castle- 
haven.  He  either  overlooked,  or  refused  to  acknowledge, 
the  fact  that  Owen  Roe — in  spite  of  his  previous  failures 
— was  an  extremely  capable  General  whom  no  opposing 
commander  could  afford  to  treat  other  than  seriously. 

The  battle  began  at  six  p.m.  Owen  Roe  had  advanced 
his  army  along  the  river  banks  to  a  hill  about  a  mile 
from  Benburb,  on  the  slopes  of  which  he  awaited  Monro' s 
attack.  While  Monro  was  engaged  in  crossing  the  river, 
Owen  Roe  addressed  an  impassioned  harangue  to  his 
men,  in  which  he  exhorted  them  to  fight  bravely  and  so 
make  the  only  amends  in  their  power  for  the  outrages 
they  had  been  guilty  of  in  Leinster.  The  appeal  was  not 
in  vain,  and  resulted  in  the  greatest  national  victory  in 
the  history  of  Ireland. 

Owen  Roe,  according  to  all  accounts,  had  under  him 
5,000  foot  and  twelve  troops  of  horse.  Monro' s  numbers 
are  less  easy  to  arrive  at  with  accuracy,  but  according 
to  the  most  reliable  sources  he  had  3,400  foot  and  eleven 
troops  of  horse,  the  latter  being  under  the  command  of 
the  young  Lord  Montgomery,  and  either  four  or  six  field- 
pieces  under  the  command  of  Lord  Blayney.  A  dis- 
charge of  the  field-pieces  opened  the  battle,  but  these 
did  little,  if  any,  execution,  as  they  were  badly  handled 
and  all  the  shots  fell  wide.  For  two  hours  the  battle  was 


1646]  BATTLE   OF   BENBURB  327 

of  a  more   or  less   passive   character,    both  sides  being 
equally   reluctant   to   attack.     About   eight   p.m.    Monro 
descried  a  body  of  troops  approaching  from  the  north, 
which  at  first  he  took  to  be  Sir  George  Monro' s  Coleraine 
force.     On  closer  view,   however,   he  found  that  it  was 
Brian  Oge  O' Neil's  detachment,  which  had  been  sent  to 
intercept  Sir  George,  but  which  had  been  brought  back 
by  the  sound  of  the  guns.     Monro  at  once  ordered  Mont- 
gomery to  charge  the  new-comers  with  his  horse.     The 
charge  proved  a  miserable  failure  :    either  it  was  badly 
led   or   not   delivered   with   sufficient   vigour,    for   Mont- 
gomery himself  was  almost  at  once  taken  prisoner,  and 
his  men,  on  seeing  the  loss  of  their  leader,  turned  and 
broke,  throwing  their  own  infantry  into  confusion.     Owen 
Roe    took    instant    advantage    of   the    opportunity    thus 
offered  to  bring  up  his  reserves  and  hurl  them  against 
the  British  force  before  the  men  could  regain  their  order. 
The  result  surpassed  expectations.     Worn  out  with  cease- 
less marching,  Monro' s  men  proved  quite  unable  to  rally, 
and  a  complete  rout  of  his  whole  army  followed.     The 
British  field-pieces  were  all  captured,  and  Lord  Blayney, 
their  commander,  who  refused  quarter,  was  killed,  gallantly 
defending   them   to   the   last.     Sir   James   Montgomery's 
regiment  was  the  only  one  which  withdrew  in  anything 
approaching  good   order.      Colonel   Conway,    who    com- 
manded the  Lisburn  force,  managed  to  reach  Newry  with 
some  forty  of  his  regiment.     Monro  himself  lost  his  wig  in 
the  scrimmage  and  fled  without  it  to  Lisburn.     Everything 
in  the  way  of  baggage,  and  provisions  for  two  months, 
fell  into  the  victors'    hands.      As  to  the  number  killed 
accounts  differ  very  materially.     Monro  himself  claimed 
that  between  five  and  six  hundred  only  had  been  killed, 
as  the  Irish  preferred  plunder  to  pursuit,  and  the  majority 
of  his  men  had  therefore  been  able  to  get  safely  across 
the  river.     This  story  must  be  taken  as  a  natural  endeavour 
on  the  part  of  a  defeated  General  to  minimise  the  losses 
due  to  his  defective    generalship.      Mulhollan  places  the 
number  of  killed  at  between  eighteen  and  nineteen  hundred, 
and   O'Mellan   at  3,548.     Carte,   who  wrote  sixty  years 
after  the  event,  fixes  the  number  of  killed  at  3,243,  which 
was   the   figure   arrived   at  by   Owen   Roe  himself.     His 
secretary    and    biographer,    however,    is    more   generous, 
and  in  the  Aphorismical  Discovery  credits  him  with  4,500 


328     ROE'S  RUPTURE  WITH  THE  COUNCIL     [CHAP,  ix 

slain,  which  we  have  reason  to  believe  was  more  than  the 
total  number  Monro  had  with  him  in  the  field.  It  seems 
tolerably  clear,  from  a  comparison  of  various  accounts, 
that  not  less  than  3,000  were  killed,  for  Monro  was  quite 
incapacitated  from  taking  the  field  for  some  time  to  come.1 

The  Lagan  Force  had  got  no  farther  on  its  way  to 
Connaught  than  Augher  when  Sir  Robert  Stewart  learned 
of  the  disaster  at  Benburb,  and,  as  there  was  no  object  in 
his  continuing  his  march,  he  at  once  returned  to  his  own 
district. 

Owen  Roe's  victory  at  Benburb  was  a  well-deserved 
triumph,  but  he  marred  the  effect  of  it  by  his  culpable 
inaction  after  the  battle.  If  the  numbers  that  he  claimed 
to  have  killed  were  not  grossly  exaggerated,  the  British 
forces  in  north-east  Ulster  were  practically  annihilated,  or 
at  any  rate  so  severely  shaken  as  to  be  incapable  of  united 
action  for  some  time  to  come.  Owen  Roe  himself  estimated 
that  he  had  at  his  disposal  an  army  of  10,000  men,1  well 
drilled  and  equipped,  and  full  of  confidence  after  their 
recent  triumph  over  Monro' s  much-dreaded  army,  to 
support  which  he  had  the  two  months'  provisions  that 
he  claimed — and  no  doubt  with  justice — to  have  captured 
at  Benburb.  The  Lagan  Force  was  the  only  integral 
body  left  to  dispute  with  him  the  supremacy  of  Ulster, 
and  there  was  little  probability  that  these  would  have 
left  their  own  district  for  the  purpose  of  interfering  with 
his  operations  in  the  north-east  had  he  promptly  followed 
up  his  victory.  All  that  Owen  Roe  did,  however,  after 
his  victory  was  to  send  Rory  Maguire  and  Phelim  McToole 
into  the  Killeleagh  district,  Co.  Down,  where  they  pillaged 
the  country  and  murdered  a  number  of  British  inhabitants. 
Owen  Roe  himself,  with  the  rest  of  his  army,  moved  to 
Tandaragee,  where  he  stayed  four  days,  and  then  with- 
drew south  into  Leinster,  his  men,  according  to  Carte, 
committing  "  horrible  depredations  on  the  way "  '  the 
moment  they  had  crossed  their  own  boundary.  Richard 
Bellings,  in  his  history  of  the  times,  says  that  these  depre- 
dations were  at  the  expense  of  the  people  of  Meath,  West- 
meath  and  Longford,  and  were  the  cause  of  a  permanent 

1  A  Relation  of  the  Fight  at  Benburb;  Contemp.  Hist.  ;  Warr  of  Ireland; 
Aphorismical  Disc. 

1  Owen  Roe  to  Daniel  O'Neil,  August  1646. 
a  Carte,  vol.4,  p.  577. 


1646]  OWEN  ROE  SUMMONED  BY  THE  NUNCIO  329 

hatred  between  the  men  of  Owen  Roe's  army  and  Preston's 
men,  whose  wives  and  families  had,  in  many  cases,  been 
the  victims  of  the  Ulster  army's  outrages.1 

The  indignation  of  the  Supreme  Council  at  Owen  Roe's 
failure  to  pursue  his  advantage  expressed  itself  in  very 
plain  terms.  Emer  McMahon,  Bishop  of  Clogher,  who 
was  at  Kilkenny  at  the  time  and  who  was  himself  a  can- 
didate for  the  command  of  the  Ulster  army,  gave  it  as 
his  opinion  that  the  opportunity  had  been  unique,  and 
that  Owen  Roe,  had  he  so  willed,  could  have  overrun 
Ulster ;  and,  acting  on  the  Bishop's  semi-expert  advice, 
the  Supreme  Council  wrote  to  Owen  Roe  severely  repri- 
manding him  for  his  negligence  or  indolence,  as  the  case 
might  be,  in  not  having  followed  up  his  advantage.  It 
so  happened,  as  matters  had  fallen  out,  that  the  approval 
or  censure  of  the  Supreme  Council  was  at  the  moment 
a  matter  of  no  concern  whatever  to  Owen  Roe,  for  he  had 
already  resolved  upon  a  definite  rupture  with  that  august 
body.  It  was  not  till  later  that  the  real  reason  for  Owen 
Roe's  failure  to  penetrate  farther  into  Ulster  became 
known.  It  was,  in  point  of  fact,  due  to  an  urgent  summons 
which  he  had  received  from  Rinuccini,  who  implored  him 
to  bring  his  victorious  army  south  for  the  purpose  of 
intimidating  the  Supreme  Council  into  acquiescence  with 
the  Nuncio's  latest  schemes.  The  latter  had  recently 
acquired  large  sums  of  money  from  the  Spanish  Agent, 
Diego  de  la  Torre,  and,  in  sending  his  congratulations 
to  Owen  Roe  at  Tandaragee,  he  promised  him  £9,000  out 
of  these  moneys  if  he  would  hurry  his  army  south  in  time 
to  prevent  the  consummation  of  a  new  peace  which  the 
Supreme  Council  was  on  the  point  of  concluding  with 
Ormonde.*  The  offer  was  more  than  Owen  Roe  could  resist, 
and,  turning  his  back  on  Ulster  and  the  possibility  of  further 
triumphs,  he  hurried  south. 

The  original  trouble  between  Owen  Roe  and  the  Supreme 
Council  had  arisen  over  the  fact  that  the  latter  body  had 
arranged  a  peace  with  Ormonde  prior  to  the  battle  of  Ben- 
burb,  the  issue  of  which  came  as  a  surprise  to  all  parties.  In 
the  face  of  Owen  Roe's  brilliant  victory,  it  seemed  to 
Rinuccini  little  short  of  scandalous  that  the  Supreme 
Council  should  agree  to  a  peace  the  terms  of  which  fell 

1  Confederation  and  War;  Ormonde  to  Richard  Sellings,  August  10, 
1646.  »  Carte,  vol.  i.  p.  577. 


330     ROE'S  RUPTURE  WITH  THE  COUNCIL    [CHAP,  ix 

very  far  short  of  those  conceded  by  the  Glamorgan  Treaty 
before  the  Irish  victory.  The  attitude  of  the  Nuncio, 
and  of  those  who,  like  Owen  Roe,  supported  him,  is  easily 
understandable.  The  moment  of  victory,  they  argued, 
was  the  moment  in  which  to  dictate  terms  rather  than  to 
accept  those  formulated  by  others.  The  terms  of  the 
Glamorgan  Treaty,  or  a  continuation  of  the  war,  was  in 
effect  their  ultimatum.  An  assembly  of  such  Roman 
Catholic  clergy  and  influential  leaders  as  were  in  sympathy 
with  the  Nuncio's  views  was  convoked  at  Waterford, 
and  with  one  voice  protested  against  the  action  of  the 
Supreme  Council  in  weakly  yielding  to  Ormonde's  proposals. 
Prior  to  the  material  aid  supplied  by  Owen  Roe's  army, 
the  Nuncio  and  those  acting  with  him  had  to  content 
themselves  with  hurling  excommunication  and  other 
religious  bombs  at  all  those  who  in  any  way  condoned  or 
supported  the  peace.  After  Owen  Roe's  arrival  a  different 
form  of  protest  was  adopted. 

In  the  meanwhile  Ormonde — always  straining  after  the 
peace  which  Charles  was  constantly  urging  him  to  con  elude — 
was  not  inactive.  On  August  6  he  despatched  Dr.  Roberts, 
Ulster  King  at  Arms,  to  proclaim  the  new  peace  throughout 
the  south  of  Ireland.  The  Nuncio's  party,  however,  had 
been  equally  busy,  and  Dr.  Roberts' s  announcement  met 
with  anything  but  a  favourable  reception.  At  Limerick, 
indeed,  Ormonde's  delegate  was  so  roughly  handled  that 
he  was  fortunate  to  escape  with  his  life.1 

It  soon  became  evident  that  the  Nuncio's  party  was  not 
going  to  be  content  with  the  discharge  of  mere  spiritual 
missiles.  Early  in  September  Owen  Roe,  at  the  head 
of  1,200  men,  captured  Roscrea  and  put  to  the  sword 
every  man,  woman  and  child  in  the  place  except  Sir 
George  Hamilton's  wife,  who  was  Ormonde's  sister.8  On 
the  16th  Kilkenny,  terrified  by  the  fate  of  Roscrea,  sur- 
rendered at  the  approach  of  Owen  Roe's  army,  and  on  the 
18th  Rinuccini  made  a  triumphal  entry  into  the  town.  All 
the  members  of  the  Supreme  Council  were  imprisoned  except 
Darcy  and  Plunkett,  and  a  new  Council  was  formed  of  which 
Rinuccini  was  nominated  President.  Lord  Muskerry  was 
deposed  from  the  chief  command  in  Munster  and  Glamorgan 
appointed  in  his  place.  Having  successfully  brought  off 
this  remarkable  coup  d'etat  at  Kilkenny,  the  Nuncio  next 

1  Roberts  to  Ormonde,  August  28,  1646.  »  Carte,  vol.  i.  p.  584. 


1646]  ORMONDE  BESIEGED  IN  DUBLIN  331 

advanced  his  army  upon  the  Lord-Lieutenant  in  Dublin. 
In  this  enterprise  Owen  Roe  and  his  Ulster  army  had  the 
support  of  Preston  and  the  Leinster  army,  the  latter 
having  been  won  over  to  the  Nuncio's  cause  by  the  irresist- 
ible argument  of  the  longer  purse.  The  combination 
would  have  been  formidable  in  the  extreme,  had  it  not 
been  that  the  Ulster  army  and  the  Leinster  army  hated 
one  another  far  worse  than  either  of  them  hated  the 
enemy  they  were  leagued  against.  The  reciprocal  hatred 
of  the  two  Irish  armies  was  to  the  full  shared  by  their 
commanders.  Owen  Roe  was  the  representative  of  the  old 
or  native  Irish,  and  Preston  of  the  Anglo-Irish  or  "  old 
English,"  as  they  were  then  called.  The  two  had  no 
common  tie  except  that  of  religion.  On  every  other 
point  they  were  candid  and  implacable  foes. 

The  hatred  existing  between  Owen  Roe  and  Preston  would 
not  necessarily  have  lessened  the  danger  to  Dublin,  provided 
the  two  Irish  Generals  could  have  agreed  for  a  sufficient 
length  of  time  to  launch  a  combined  attack.  Ormonde, 
within  the  walls,  was  in  no  position  to  put  up  a  serious 
defence.  His  English  royalist  troops  were  few  in  number, 
badly  paid,  badly  armed  and  badly  fed  ;  all  his  chief 
supporters  in  Ireland  were  penniless  ;  their  estates  were 
devastated  and  their  money  resources  had  long  ago  been 
eaten  up  in  the  support  of  their  troops.  Their  royal 
master,  in  whose  cause  they  had  sacrificed  their  all,  was 
a  prisoner  with  the  Scots  ;  his  fortunes  were  hopelessly  on 
the  decline.  Outside  the  walls  of  Dublin  was  a  savage  and 
overwhelming  force  which  threatened  to  cut  the  throats 
of  all  those  inside  unless  the  place  was  surrendered, 
and  which  had  recently,  at  Roscrea,  given  grim  proof 
that  it  was  fully  capable  of  carrying  out  its  threat.  In 
this  emergency  Ormonde,  the  staunch  and  unwavering 
Royalist,  was  forced  to  the  admission  that  circumstances 
were  too  strong  for  him,  and  on  the  29th  of  September  he 
applied  for  help  to  the  Parliament  in  England  !  At  the 
same  time  he  sent  a  message  to  Monro  imploring  him  to 
come  to  his  assistance.  Monro  pleaded  physical  inability  : 
his  army,  he  said,  had  been  shattered  at  Benburb,  and  he 
had  not  sufficient  strength  to  venture  so  far  afield  as 
Dublin  without  imperilling  the  safety  of  his  garrisons. 
The  most  that  he  was  able  to  do  was  to  order  Conway's 
Lisburn  regiment,  which  was  wholly  royalist  in  its 


332    ROE'S  RUPTURE  WITH  THE  COUNCIL     [CHAP,  ix 

leanings,  to  make  a  diversion  on  the  southern  border 
of  Ulster. 

In  obedience  to  these  orders  Colonel  Conway  rode  out 
of  Lisburn  on  October  27  at  the  head  of  700  mounted 
men  l  and  occupied  a  fortnight  in  ravaging  the  four  counties 
of  Monaghan,  Cavan,  Louth  and  Westmeath.  A  quantity 
of  arms,  ammunition  and  supplies  destined  for  Owen  Roe's 
army  was  captured.  Carrickmacross,  which  had  been 
Owen  Roe's  headquarters  during  his  stay  in  Ulster,  was 
burnt,  and  all  the  newly  constructed  defences  destroyed, 
after  which  1,200  cows,  400  horses  and  1,000  sheep  were 
triumphantly  driven  home.2 

Owen  Roe  took  no  notice  of  Con  way's  operations  in 
Ulster,  and  on  November  2  he  and  Preston  sent  Ormonde 
a  joint  summons  to  surrender  the  city.  To  this  summons 
Ormonde  returned  an  unqualified  refusal.  It  is  quite 
possible  that  he  had  secret  information  as  to  the  internal 
dissensions  which  were  paralysing  the  movements  of  the 
Irish  army.  If  not,  his  action  was  that  of  a  very  brave 
man. 

The  tension  between  Owen  Roe  and  Preston  had  by 
now,  according  to  Carte,  become  so  strained  that  each  of 
the  allied  armies  lived  in  daily  and  deadly  fear  of  a  surprise 
attack  from  the  other.  This  mutual  distrust  made  any- 
thing in  the  way  of  concerted  action  a  sheer  impossibility, 
and  the  investing  army  remained  a  mere  menace  and 
nothing  more.  At  no  time  in  the  history  of  Ireland  did 
a  more  magnificent  opportunity  present  itself  for  over- 
whelming the  invading  Saxons  and  regaining  Ireland  for 
the  Irish.  Ormonde,  with  a  mere  scarecrow  of  an  army 
incapable  of  real  resistance,  was  cooped  up  in  Dublin, 
while  Monro,  after  his  defeat  at  Benburb,  was  by  his 
own  confession  incapacitated  for  taking  the  field,  and 
could  with  difficulty  have  held  his  garrison-towns  against 
a  determined  attack.  In  1646,  however — as  at  other  times — 
private  jealousies  and  ambitions  counted  with  the  leaders 

1  It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  Conway  could  have  raised  700  horsemen 
within  four  months  of  the  battle  of  Benburb,  from  which  only  40  of  his 
regiment  were  reported  to  have  escaped.     The  figure  of  700,  however,  is 
furnished  by  his  own  pen.      Lord  Conway's  regiment  had  its  headquarters 
at  Lisburn,  but  we  learn  from  the  "  Despatch  of  an  Unknown  Officer  "  that 
detachments  from  the  regiment  also  occupied  four  forts  which  had  been  con- 
structed in  the  Killultagh  district.     The  one  possible  explanation  is  that 
only  part  of  the  regiment  was  engaged  at  Benburb. 

2  "  Exceeding  good  news  from  Ireland  from  Lord  Conway." 


1646]  THE   RELIEF  OF  DUBLIN  333 

for  more  than  the  national  interests,  and  the  opportunity 
was  missed.  The  only  achievement  at  this  period  to  the 
credit  of  either  of  the  Irish  Generals  was  the  capture  of 
Kells,  which  Owen  Roe  succeeded  in  surprising  at  the  end 
of  October.  Two  thousand  men  under  Henry  Roe  and 
Phelim  McToole  made  a  forced  march  of  twenty  miles 
one  night,  and  in  the  mists  of  morning  caught  the  garrison 
off  their  guard.  According  to  the  authors  of  the  Aphoris- 
mical  Discovery  and  Warr  of  Ireland  the  entire  garrison  of 
700  was  put  to  the  sword,  the  only  man  spared  being 
the  Governor,  Sir  Theophilus  Jones.  Richard  Bellings, 
in  his  version  of  the  affair,  mentions  that  the  Captain  and 
Lieutenant  of  the  garrison  were  killed,  but  says  nothing 
about  the  slaughter  of  the  garrison  of  700,  nor  is  it  easy 
to  see  how  so  large  a  garrison  could  have  been  in 
occupation. 

On  November  14  1,000  foot  and  200  horse,  which 
had  been  sent  over  by  the  Parliament  in  response  to 
Ormonde's  appeal,  landed  outside  Dublin,  and  both  Irish 
commanders  at  once  raised  the  siege.  This  precipitate 
action  on  their  part  was,  as  events  turned  out,  premature 
and  unnecessary,  for  the  stay  of  the  parliamentary  troops 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Dublin  was  of  the  shortest. 
They  had  come  over  under  the  joint  command  of  a  com- 
mittee composed  of  Sir  Robert  King,  Mr.  Annesley,  Sir 
Robert  Meredith  and  Colonel  Michael  Jones,  the  last 
named  being  brother  to  Sir  Theophilus.  This  committee 
— acting  on  instructions — gave  Ormonde  clearly  to  under- 
stand that  before  they  could  give  him  any  help  he  must 
resign  the  Sword  and  place  the  garrison  under  their  absolute 
control.  To  this  demand  Ormonde — reassured  by  the 
prompt  retreat  of  Preston  and  Owen  Roe — returned  a 
flat  refusal.  The  commissioners,  on  their  side,  refused 
with  equal  determination  to  help  him  on  any  other  con- 
ditions, and  in  the  end  they  re-embarked  their  troops 
and  sailed  up  the  coast  to  offer  their  assistance  to  the 
Scots.  A  marked  change,  however,  was  by  this  time 
beginning  to  show  itself  in  the  attitude  of  the  Scots  towards 
the  Parliament,  and  the  army — to  the  great  surprise  of  the 
committee — was  refused  admission  to  either  Belfast  or 
Carrickfergus.  The  commissioners  themselves  were  in- 
vited to  come  to  Belfast,  where  they  had  an  interview  with 
the  Ulster  leaders,  but  they  failed  to  persuade  them 


334     ROE'S  RUPTURE  WITH  THE  COUNCIL  [CHAP,  ix 

to  admit  the  army,  which  was  finally  forced  to  make  an 
unsolicited  landing  in  Lecale. 

Upon  the  departure  of  the  parliamentary  troops, 
Owen  Roe  and  Preston  once  more  addressed  themselves  to 
the  siege  of  Dublin,  but  contented  themselves,  as  before, 
with  attempting  to  starve  Ormonde  into  surrender.  For 
three  months  more  the  Lord-Lieutenant  managed  to  hold 
out,  in  hopes  of  the  unexpected,  but  his  position  finally 
became  desperate,  and  on  February  6,  1647,  he  wrote 
to  the  parliamentary  commissioners,  who  were  still  in 
Lecale,  accepting  the  terms  which  he  had  recently  refused. 
The  commissioners,  mindful  of  Ormonde's  quick  change 
of  front  on  the  occasion  of  their  last  visit,  expressed  their 
willingness  to  renew  negotiations,  provided  that  Ormonde 
would  hand  over  one  of  his  sons  as  a  pledge  of  his  good 
faith.  To  this  Ormonde  agreed  ;  his  second  son,  Richard, 
was  despatched  to  England,  and,  after  some  little  un- 
avoidable delay,  the  parliamentary  forces  returned  to 
Dublin  from  Lecale.  Very  shortly  afterwards  600  addi- 
tional troops  arrived  in  Dublin  from  England,  bringing 
the  total  reinforcements  up  to  1,400  foot  and  400  horse. 
On  June  19  the  treaty  with  the  parliamentary  commis- 
sioners was  signed.  By  the  terms  of  this  treaty  Dublin, 
Drogheda,  Dundalk,  Trim,  Naas,  Newry,  Narrow-water, 
Greencastle  and  Carlingford  were  to  be  handed  over  to 
Colonel  Michael  Jones,  representing  the  Parliament.  The 
main  stipulation  on  the  other  side  was  the  relief  of  Dublin, 
which  was  in  a  starving  and  defenceless  condition,  but 
Ormonde  was  also  apparently  able  to  extract  from  the 
commissioners  an  undertaking  that  he  himself  should  be 
guaranteed  £2,000  a  year  in  the  future,  should  his  rents 
not  reach  that  figure.1  This  point  was  yielded,  and  on 
June  28  the  Lord-Lieutenant  handed  over  the  Sword  and 
sailed  for  England. 

1  Carte,  vol.  i.  p.  591.  The  author  of  Aphoriamical  Discovery,  who  loses 
no  opportunity  of  defaming  Ormonde,  says  that  the  Marquis  was  paid 
£1,200  down,  and  was  guaranteed  £4,000  a  year  for  life. 


CHAPTER    X 

IRELAND    UNDER   THE    PARLIAMENT 

WITH  the  departure  of  Ormonde  at  mid-summer  1647 
the  royalist  party  in  Ireland  ceased  for  the  time  being 
to  exist.  All  the  British  forces  were  for  the  moment 
united  under  the  command  of  Colonel  Michael  Jones, 
Governor  of  Dublin.  The  Irish  forces,  to  all  appearance, 
were  equally  united  under  the  new  Supreme  Council, 
but  in  reality  the  old  hatred  between  Owen  Roe  and 
Preston  was  as  active  as  ever  and  prevented  any  real 
cohesion.  So  keenly  was  this  recognised  that  the  Nuncio — 
feeling  the  necessity  for  separating  the  two — took  the 
first  opportunity  of  sending  Owen  Roe  and  his  army  into 
Connaught  with  the  object  of  capturing  the  important 
town  of  Sligo. 

Michael  Jones,  the  Governor  of  Dublin  and  the  Com- 
mander-in-Chief  of  the  parliamentary  force  in  Ireland,  from 
the  very  first  gave  evidence  of  the  remarkable  military 
capacity  which  distinguished  him  throughout  his  brief 
career.  In  order  to  establish  his  authority  on  firm  ground, 
his  first  act  was  to  summon  all  the  British  forces  in  Ulster 
to  a  general  inspection  at  Drogheda,  where  he  reviewed 
them  and  sounded  their  leaders  as  to  their  allegiance 
to  the  Parliament.  The  reply  of  the  leaders  was  that 
they  were  ready  to  combine  with  Jones  against  the  Irish, 
so  long  as  the  action  of  the  Parliament  remained  con- 
stitutional. Apparently  satisfied  with  this  assurance, 
Jones  dismissed  them  at  the  end  of  a  fortnight  to  their 
respective  quarters.  Colonel  George  Monck  was  appointed 
Commander-in-Chief  of  the  British  forces  in  north-east 
Ulster,  and  accompanied  Colonel  Conway's  regiment  back 
to  Lisburn,  which  he  made  his  headquarters.  The  Lagan 
Force  was  placed  under  the  orders  of  Sir  Charles  Coote, 
who,  at  the  same  time,  was  appointed  Governor  of  Derry 
in  place  of  Lord  Folliott. 

23  335 


336-     IRELAND   UNDER  THE   PARLIAMENT   [CHAP.  X 

Owen  Roe's  dismissal  to  Connaught  left  Preston  the 
undisputed  leader  of  the  Irish  forces  in  Leinster,  a  circum- 
stance of  which  he  took  immediate  advantage.  At  the 
beginning  of  August  he  got  together  an  army  of  7,000 
foot  and  1,000  horse  with  which  he  commenced  well  by 
capturing  Naas,  which  was  one  of  the  towns  which  had 
just  been  handed  over  by  Ormonde  to  the  Parliament. 
His  next  attempt  was  upon  Trim.  Before,  however,  he 
could  succeed  in  reducing  the  latter  place  Jones  got  moving. 
He  himself  marched  out  of  Dublin  with  3,800  foot  and 
two  regiments  of  Dragoons,  and  at  the  same  time  he  called 
upon  Monck  to  send  him  down  as  many  of  the  Ulster 
British  as  he  could  get  together  in  the  limited  time  avail- 
able. Monck  sent  down  the  Lisburn  force  under  Colonel 
Conway  and  the  Mount  joy  garrison  under  Colonel  James 
Clotworthy,  and  these  two  succeeded  in  joining  Jones 
on  the  flat  strip  of  land  between  Maystown  and  Skrine. 
On  learning  of  the  junction  of  the  two  British  forces, 
Preston  at  once  raised  the  siege  of  Trim  and  retreated 
towards  the  south.  During  the  course  of  his  retirement 
he  learned  that  the  only  regiment  left  in  Dublin  was  the 
Earl  of  Kildare's  regiment,  which  was  composed  of 
Ormonde's  old  soldiers,  who  might  reasonably  be  supposed 
to  have  little  real  love  for  the  Parliament  whom  they 
were  temporarily  serving.  The  opportunity  which  thus 
seemed  to  be  afforded  of  getting  possession  of  Dublin  was 
not  to  be  missed,  and  Preston  set  off  with  all  possible 
speed  in  that  direction.  Jones  gave  immediate  chase, 
and,  in  the  hopes  of  retarding  Preston's  march,  sent 
Colonel  James  Clotworthy  and  Major  Harman  on  ahead 
with  500  horse.  This  mounted  detachment  overtook 
Preston's  army  at  Dungan  Hill,  and  almost  at  once  came 
into  collision  with  the  Irish  horse  which  Preston  interposed 
between  the  pursuers  and  his  own  main  body.  In  the 
encounter  which  followed  Colonel  James  Clotworthy,  we 
are  told,  behaved  with  extraordinary  valour.1  The  Irish 
horse  were  quickly  routed,  and  in  their  flight  galloped 
through  the  midst  of  their  own  foot,  who  were  thrown  into 
confusion,  and  who — on  seeing  themselves  deserted  by 
their  own  horse — abandoned  the  idea  of  fighting  and 
took  refuge  in  the  middle  of  a  bog  where  they  thought 
they  would  be  safe.  By  this  time  the  rest  of  Jones's 

1  Hibernia  Anglicana. 


1647]  BATTLE  OF  DtlNGAN  HILL  3#f 

army  had  come  up,  and,  by  completely  surrounding  the 
bog,  effectually  prevented  any  further  attempt  at  flight. 
The  bog  was  then  invaded  by  the  British  infantry,  and 
a  terrible  slaughter  ensued.  According  to  some  reports 
5,470  of  the  Irish  were  killed,  all  their  ammunition  and 
baggage  was  taken,  and  last,  but  not  least  in  importance, 
"  sixty-four  fair  oxen  for  draft  purposes."  *  As  invariably 
happened  in  such  cases,  the  Irish  afterwards  claimed 
that  they  had  surrendered  upon  promise  of  quarter,  a 
statement  which  the  English  utterly  denied,  but  the 
truth  or  untruth  of  which  is  beyond  the  reach  of  modern 
investigation.  The  whole  affair  is  somewhat  mysterious, 
for — even  if  we  accept  the  Irish  claim  of  a  surrender 
upon  terms — it  is  still  difficult  to  understand  why  a  per- 
fectly equipped  army,  such  as  we  know  Preston's  to 
have  been,  should  have  surrendered  to  a  numerically 
inferior  force  without  striking  a  blow.  In  addition  to 
those  killed,  250  prisoners  were  taken,  among  whom  were 
the  Earl  of  Westmeath  and  Colonel  Byrne.  The  latter 
was  an  officer  of  considerable  foreign  experience,  and 
was  reputed  one  of  the  best  of  the  Irish  commanders. 
He  and  the  Earl  of  Westmeath  were  subsequently  ex- 
changed for  Lord  Montgomery  and  Sir  Theophilus  Jones, 
who  were  both  prisoners  in  Lough  Oughter  Castle.  Preston 
fled  to  Carlow ;  the  Ulster  forces  were  dismissed  to  their 
own  quarters,  and  Jones,  flushed  with  victory,  returned 
to  Dublin.1 

The  battle  of  Dungan  Hill  stands  out  as  the  heaviest 
defeat  ever  sustained  by  the  Irish  in  the  field.  The  House 
of  Commons  in  England  ordered  a  day  of  general  rejoicing 
over  the  event  throughout  the  kingdom.  One  thousand 
pounds  was  voted  to  Jones,  £500  to  Colonel  Fenwick, 
and  £200  to  Sir  Henry  Tichborne. 

The  destruction  of  Preston's  army,  which  was  reckoned 
the  strongest  and  the  best-equipped  in  Ireland,  was  a 
disastrous  blow  to  the  Supreme  Council.  Preston  was 
relieved  of  his  command  and  was  relegated  for  the  time 
being  to  more  peaceful  duties  as  Governor  of  Kilkenny 
and  Waterford.  All  the  survivors  of  his  army  joined 
Owen  Roe,  who  was  hastily  recalled  from  Connaught 

1  Rushworth,  vol.  vii,  p.  779. 

1  Carte,  vol.  ii.  p.  7 ;  Confed.  and  War,  vol.  vii.  p.  33 ;  Aph.  Disc. ; 
Warr  of  Ireland. 


338       IRELAND  UNDER  THE  PARLIAMENT   [CHA*.  fc 

to  try  to  repair  the  fortunes  of  the  Irish  party.  Nothing 
could  have  suited  Owen  Roe  better,  and,  after  having 
expressed  his  contempt  of  Preston  for  having  been  so 
foolish  as  to  be  drawn  into  an  encounter,  he  proceeded 
to  put  his  own  rival  methods  into  operation.  These  took 
the  form  of  a  systematic  devastation  of  all  the  country 
around  Dublin,  by  which  he  hoped  that  Jones  would, 
within  a  reasonable  time,  be  starved  into  surrender.  In 
this  crusade  of  destruction  no  property  was  sacred.  Many 
hundreds  of  "  the  goodliest  haggards  of  corn  that  ever 
were  seen  in  these  parts  "  1  were  burned  during  the  process. 
Some  annoyance  was  no  doubt  occasioned  to  Jones  by 
this  wholesale  destruction  of  good  food,  but  nothing 
approaching  the  annoyance  which  was  caused  to  many 
members  of  the  Supreme  Council,  on  whose  property 
the  "  goodly  haggards "  had  stood.  On  November  15, 
while  Owen  Roe  was  at  Castle  Jordan,  which  he  had  made 
his  headquarters,  he  received  a  summons  from  the  Supreme 
Council  to  appear  before  them  at  Kilkenny  without 
delay,  and  answer  to  the  following  charges  : 

"  (1)  Disobeying  their  commands. 

"  (2)  Having  taken  the  money  provided  for  the  purpose 
of  his  expedition  to  Connaught  (£9,000)  but  having  accom- 
plished nothing. 

"  (3)  Having  allowed  Athboy  to  be  taken  by  the  British 
without  making  any  attempt  to  save  it,  he  himself  being 
safe  in  Castle  Jordan  at  the  time. 

"  (4)  Burning  Dublin  and  Meath,  the  property  of  the 
Pale  Lords."  * 

The  real  cause  of  offence  was,  of  course,  contained  in 
No.  (4),  but  the  mob  which  gathered  outside  the  Assembly 
Room  knew  nothing  of  this,  and — on  Owen  Roe's  appear- 
ance— clamoured  loudly  for  his  death  as  a  traitor  to  his 
country.  The  Supreme  Council  would  no  doubt  gladly  have 
yielded  to  this  appeal,  for  they  both  feared  and  disliked 
the  Ulster  leader,  but  they  had  the  sense  to  recognise 
that  in  him  lay  their  only  hope  of  any  military  success. 
Both  Preston  and  Castlehaven  had  been  proved  incom- 
petent ;  Lord  Taafe,  who  had  replaced  Castlehaven  in 
Munster,  had  just  received  an  overwhelming  defeat  at 
the  hands  of  Inchiquin  and  his  parliamentary  army  at 

1  Sir  Maurice  Eustace  to  Ormonde,  August  28,  1646. 

2  Aphoriemical  Disc.,  p.  117. 


1647]  BATTLE   OF  'KNOCKNONESS  339 

Knocknoness  (Shrub  Hill)  under  circumstances  which 
inspired  but  little  confidence  in  the  commander.  The 
author  of  the  Aphorismical  Discovery,  as  the  apologist  of 
Owen  Roe  and  the  bitter  foe  of  the  Supreme  Council 
and  all  its  tributaries,  accuses  Taafe,  Purcell  and  O'Grady, 
the  three  Irish  commanders  at  the  battle  of  Knocknoness, 
of  having  accepted  from  Inchiquin  a  bribe  of  £1,500  to 
betray  their  Highland  ally,  the  famous  Alastair  McColl- 
kittagh  Macdonnell.  This  is  probably  pure  fiction.  Accord- 
ing to  Richard  Bellings,  who  is  usually  reliable,  the  cir- 
cumstances responsible  for  Alastair' s  death,  and  for  the 
defeat  of  the  whole  army,  were  as  follows  :  "  The  right 
wing,"  he  tells  us,  "  led  by  Alastair  Macdonnell,  a  gallant 
gentleman  and  a  well-experienced  officer,  routed  with 
much  slaughter  the  enemy's  [Inchiquin's]  Horse  and  Foot  in 
their  left  wing  and  possessed  the  Ordnance,  and  pursued 
them  as  far  as  the  gates  of  Mallow ;  but  the  Foot  of  the 
Confederate  left  wing,  after  the  first  charge — where  they 
lost  not  six  men — ran  hastily  to  the  top  of  a  hill,  fearing 
belike  that  the  right  wing,  which  they  saw  not,  was  beaten, 
and  intending — though  they  were  the  last — yet  to  overtake 
the  runaways.  Here  the  General  [Taafe],  by  wounding 
some  and  encouraging  others,  got  them  to  face  the  enemy 
until,  spying  a  troop  of  Horse  that  made  directly  towards 
them,  they  flung  away  their  arms,  and  trusting  to  their 
heels,  no  threats,  no  persuasions  being  of  power  to  stop 
them,  notwithstanding  that  the  General  and  others  swore 
— and  swore  the  truth — that  they  were  of  their  own 
party."  * 

The  flight  of  Taafe' s  right  wing  left  Alastair  McColl- 
kittagh  and  his  700  Highlanders  wholly  unsupported,  and 
they  were  killed  to  a  man.  The  defeat  of  Taafe  and  the 
loss  of  Macdonnell,  who  was  unquestionably  the  most 
redoubtable  fighter  opposed  to  the  British  at  that  time 
in  Ireland,  left  the  Supreme  Council  in  considerable  diffi- 
culties in  the  matter  of  a  military  commander,  and  seemed 
to  point  to  the  possible  necessity  in  the  future  of  receiving 
Owen  Roe  back  into  favour.  At  the  moment,  however, 
the  leaders  of  the  Confederate  Catholics  were  still  far  too 
incensed  at  the  destruction  of  their  property  to  let  the 
national  interests  overrule  their  own  personal  grievances. 
Owen  Roe  was  disgraced  and  deposed  from  his  temporary 
1  Richard  Bellings's  Confederation  and  War,  p.  35. 


840       IRELAND  UNDER  THE  PARLIAMENT   [CHAP,  x 

command  of  the  army  in  Leinster,  but  he  was  ordered 
nevertheless  to  remain  in  Queen's  Co.  close  at  hand  in  case 
of  emergency.  In  his  downfall  most  of  his  Ulster  associates 
deserted  him.  Sir  Phelim,  Turlough  Oge  O'Neil  (of 
Glasdromin),  Mulmore  O'Reilly,  Daniel  Magennis  and  Coll 
MacBrian  McMahon  turned  their  backs  on  their  old  com- 
mander and  marched  off  home  with  their  contingents.1 
Philip  McHugh  O'Reilly,  Phelim  McToole  and  Rory 
Maguire  alone  remained  faithful.8 

At  this  critical  point  in  his  career  Owen  Roe  resolved  on 
a  bold  stroke.  The  province  of  Leinster  had  little  attrac- 
tion for  him.  He  was  personally  unpopular  with  the 
country  people,  who  had  never  forgiven  the  outrages 
committed  by  his  soldiers  before  and  after  Benburb,  and 
the  Supreme  Council,  which  held  the  reins  of  authority 
and  controlled  the  exchequer  in  Leinster,  were  openly 
hostile  to  him  on  account  of  his  recent  destruction  of  their 
property  around  Dublin.  On  the  other  hand,  opportunities 
which  were  not  likely  to  recur  seemed  to  present  them- 
selves for  a  successful  campaign  in  the  north.  The  growing 
disinclination  of  the  Ulster  territorial  regiments  to  leave 
their  ordinary  vocations  and  fight  for  the  Parliament 
without  pay  was  a  matter  of  common  knowledge.  Of 
all  these  regiments,  Lord  Conway's  regiment  at  Lisburn 
had  been  most  consistently  royalist,  and  it  was  by  no 
means  an  unreasonable  expectation  that,  in  a  sudden 
emergency,  the  regiment  would  be  slow  to  range  itself 
on  the  side  of  Monck.  In  this  belief,  Owen  Roe  resolved 
to  attempt  the  surprise  of  Lisburn.  His  plans  were 
well  laid,  but  the  whole  scheme  miscarried  most  unhappily. 
Conway's  regiment,  unsympathetic  though  it  might  be 
to  the  Parliament,  had  too  clear  a  recollection  of  the 
days  of  1641  to  stand  by  idle  while  a  native  Irish  army 
was  on  the  war-path.  "  Two  things,"  Richard  Bellings 
tells  us,  "  kept  the  English  and  the  Scots  in  Ulster 
united  :  one  was  their  unanimous  aversion  to  the  Pope's 
supremacy ;  the  other  was  the  interests  of  the  British 
nation,  which  all  of  them  made  their  concernment  to 
defend  against  the  Irish  natives."  s  One  or  other  of  these 
considerations,  or  possibly  both,  brought  Conway's  regi- 
ment into  the  field  at  the  first  intimation  of  Owen  Roe's 

1   Warr  of  Ireland,  p.  70.  *  Relation  of  Col.  O'Neil. 

9  Confed.  and  War,  vol.  vi.  p.  27. 


1647]        OWEN   ROE  DEFEATED   BY  MONCK          341 

approach.  Instead  of  waiting  to  be  attacked  at  home, 
Monck  very  wisely  sent  the  regiment  out  to  meet  the 
enemy  half-way.  Con  way's  regiment — whose  exploits  were 
by  now  beginning  to  rival  those  of  the  Lagan  Force — now 
numbered  700  mounted  men.  Half  of  this  number  awaited 
the  arrival  of  the  Irish  at  a  selected  spot  favourable  for 
attack,  while  the  other  half  rode  round  behind  Owen  Roe's 
column,  and  concealed  themselves  in  a  pass  through  which 
the  invading  force  would  have  to  make  its  retreat  in  case 
of  defeat.  Everything  fell  out  as  Monck  had  anticipated. 
Owen  Roe's  men — finding  that  their  surprise  had  failed — 
turned  and  broke  the  moment  Conway's  horse  attacked 
them,  and  fled  homewards  through  the  pass  where  the 
other  half 'of  the  regiment  lay  hidden.  Here  their  dis- 
comfiture was  completed  by  the  onslaught  of  the  concealed 
men.  Five  hundred  of  the  Irish  were  said  to  have  been 
killed,  and  considerable  quantities  of  arms  and  ammuni- 
tion were  lost.1 

There  can  be  very  little  doubt  that  Owen  Roe's  object 
in  attempting  this  surprise  attack  had  been  to  re-establish 
his  prestige  in  Ulster  by  a  second  Benburb.  Unfor- 
tunately for  him  the  result  was  not  as  anticipated,  and 
the  complete  overthrow  of  his  force  had  the  effect  of 
leaving  him  even  more  friendless  and  discredited  than 
before.  He  once  more  withdrew  with  such  armed  forces 
as  remained  to  him  to  Leinster,  being  driven  out  of  his 
own  province  more  by  the  desolation  of  the  country 
than  by  any  fear  of  aggressive  action  on  the  part  of  Monck. 
His  reappearance  was  anything  but  welcome  to  Preston, 
who  had  no  wish  to  divide  the  meagre  supplies  which 
the  province  afforded  with  a  rival  and  unfriendly  army. 
So  general  and  so  strong  had  the  feeling  against  Owen 
Roe  and  his  northern  men  now  become  that  he  soon  found 
it  prudent  to  leave  Leinster  and  to  move  on  south  into 
Munster,  where — being  a  stranger — he  was  the  object  of 
no  such  pronounced  antagonism.  Other  difficulties,  how- 
ever, were  awaiting  him  in  the  southern  province.  The 
moment  he  was  over  the  border  Inchiquin  was  hot  upon 
his  trail,  and,  though  he  failed  to  force  him  into  an  en- 
counter, he  drove  him  from  one  end  of  the  province  to 
another  and  gave  him  no  peace  until  he  was  once  more 
over  the  border  into  Leinster. 

1  JUishworth,  vol.  vii,  p.  1107, 


842       IRELAND  UNDER  THE  PARLIAMENT   [CHAP,  x 

Here  a  new  opening  for  his  energies  was  found  in  the  cir- 
cumstance of  a  recent  rupture  which  had  occurred  between 
the  Nuncio  and  the  new  Supreme  Council  which  he  himself 
had  appointed.  The  trouble  had  first  arisen  over  a 
Cessation  which  the  Supreme  Council,  in  combination  with 
Preston,  who  was  now  Governor  of  Kilkenny,  had  con- 
cluded at  the  end  of  April  with  Inchiquin,  in  consideration 
of  which  it  was  alleged  that  the  Supreme  Council  had 
paid  the  latter  £8,000.1  That  this  allegation  was  well 
founded  is  by  no  means  improbable,  for  Inchiquin  had 
been  slaughtering  and  burning  in  Munster  with  a  ferocity 
which  threatened  to  destroy  the  whole  province.  The 
Nuncio's  objections  to  the  proposed  Cessation  were  mainly 
on  grounds  which  extended  to  all  Cessations,  of  any  kind, 
which  were  based  on  an  abandonment  of  the  terms  con- 
tained in  the  Glamorgan  Treaty,  to  which — in  spite  of 
the  King's  denial — it  was  still  claimed  that  Charles  was  a 
consenting  party.  In  such  a  dispute,  Owen  Roe  was  in 
complete  sympathy  with  the  Nuncio,  and  his  first  act 
on  returning  from  Munster  was  to  place  himself  and  his 
vagrant  army  at  Rinuccini's  disposal.  This  constituted 
an  open  defiance  of  the  Supreme  Council,  and  on  September 
30  Owen  Roe  was  publicly  proclaimed  by  the  Confederate 
Catholics  to  be  "  a  rebel  and  a  traitor  against  our  Sovereign 
Lord  the  King."  *  In  an  attempt  to  detach  the  newly 
proclaimed  traitor's  remaining  adherents  from  him,  pardon 
was  promised  to  all  those  with  him  who  would  lay  down 
their  arms  before  October  25,  except  Owen  Roe  himself, 
Emer  McMahon,  Bishop  of  Clogher,  and  Edmund  O'Reilly, 
the  Vicar-General.  In  this,  the  most  decided  split  that 
had  yet  occurred  among  the  Irish,  the  Roman  Catholic 
clergy  were  very  evenly  divided,  some  siding  with  Preston 
and  the  Supreme  Council,  and  others  with  Owen  Roe 
and  the  Nuncio.  Each  party  freely  excommunicated  the 
other  with  bell,  book  and  candle,  but  without  producing 
any  noticeable  effect.  The  lay  disputants  were  equally 
threatening  and  abusive  of  one  another,  and,  at  Athlone, 
actually  came  to  blows ;  but  little  damage  seems  to  have 
been  done  to  either  side. 

1  Aphorinmical  Disc,  *  Gilbert's  Contemp.  Hist. 


CHAPTER    XI 

THE    POLITICAL   CONSCIENCE    OF   THE    ULSTER   SCOTS 

THE  gradual  change  in  the  attitude  of  the  Presbyterians 
in  Scotland  towards  the  Parliament  was  faithfully  reflected 
among  the  Ulster  Scots  across  the  water,  who,  as  time 
went  on,  began  to  show  a  rapidly  diminishing  friendliness 
towards  those  who  represented  the  Parliament  in  Ireland. 
The  events  responsible  for  these  changes  had  their  begin- 
ning in  the  surrender  of  the  King  to  the  Scots  in  May  1646. 
The  act  of  surrender  itself  did  not  materially  affect  the 
situation.  The  Parliament  merely  took  advantage  of  the 
opportunity  offered  to  lay  before  the  King  certain  terms 
upon  the  acceptance  of  which  they  were  ready  to  make  peace. 
The  main  points  on  which  they  then  insisted  were  :  the 
command  of  the  army  and  fleet  for  twenty  years  ;  the 
exclusion  of  all  Royalists  who  had  fought  in  the  war  from 
civil  or  military  offices  ;  the  abolition  of  episcopacy  and 
the  establishment  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The  Scots, 
who  at  that  time  still  saw  eye  to  eye  with  the  Parliament, 
pressed  the  acceptance  of  these  terms  on  the  King  "  with 
tears."  Had  he  only  agreed,  he  and  the  Presbyterians 
and  the  more  moderate  members  of  the  Parliamentary 
Party  would  have  formed  a  combination  before  which 
the  budding  power  of  the  Independents  would,  in  all 
probability,  have  withered  away.  Unfortunately,  how- 
ever, the  King,  fettered  by  his  constitutional  inability 
to  make  any  concession  which  might  have  the  effect  of 
weakening  his  royal  prerogatives,  and  always  procras- 
tinating in  hopes  of  the  unexpected  occurring,  refused, 
and  the  opportunity  was  missed.  At  the  end  of  1647 
the  King  escaped,  and  fled  to  the  Isle  of  Wight,  where  he 
was  once  more  made  prisoner  by  Colonel  Hammond,  the 
Governor  of  Carisbrook  Castle.  By  this  time  the  character 
of  the  Parliament  had  radically  changed  :  the  Independent 

343 


844  POLITICAL  CONSCIENCE  OF  ULSTER  SCOTS  [CHAP.XI 

Party  in  the  House  was  dominant,  the  Presbyterian  Party 
shrinking  and  powerless.  The  military  aid  of  the  Scots 
was  no  longer  required,  and  the  solemn  undertaking  in  con- 
sideration of  which  their  aid  had  been  forthcoming  was 
contemptuously  ignored.  The  strong  reaction  in  the  King's 
favour  which  followed  upon  the  parliamentary  repudiation 
of  the  Covenant  presented  certain  hopeful  possibilities  to  the 
mind  of  the  King.  While  still  a  prisoner  in  the  Isle  of 
Wight,  he  signed  a  secret  treaty  with  the  Scots  in  which 
he  undertook,  in  return  for  military  aid,  to  give  his  full 
support  to  the  establishment  of  the  Presbyterian  form 
of  worship  in  England.  This  practically  amounted  to  the 
King  taking  up  the  Parliament's  recent  position  as  a 
subscriber  to  the  Covenant.  In  spite  of  the  well-known 
fragility  of  the  King's  promises,  the  signing  of  this  treaty 
made  a  very  strong  impression  in  Presbyterian  circles. 
Nominally  at  any  rate  the  King  and  the  Scottish  Presby- 
terians were  now  allied  against  the  Parliament,  and 
though  the  King,  as  a  prisoner,  had  little  actual  power, 
the  signing  of  the  treaty  was  accepted  as  sufficient  evidence 
of  his  good  intentions.  The  effect  on  Ulster  opinion 
of  these  new  and  unexpected  developments  was  very 
great  indeed,  and  revolutionised  to  a  great  extent  many 
pre-existing  ideas. 

In  the  earlier  days  of  the  struggle  between  the  King 
and  the  Parliament  the  sympathies  of  the  Ulster  Scots 
had  been  very  markedly  with  the  latter.  The  struggle, 
as  they  then  saw  it,  was  a  struggle  for  relief  from  a  religious 
and  monarchical  tyranny,  and  they  warmly  espoused  the 
cause  of  the  party  that,  in  their  opinion,  stood  for  liberty 
of  conscience.  Monarchy,  as  the  main  prop  of  prelacy, 
seemed  at  that  time  clearly  indicated  as  a  hostile  influence. 
Then  came  the  Covenant,  and  that  which  had  before 
been  a  matter  of  conscience  became  a  fixed  obligation. 
The  Solemn  League  and  Covenant,  in  effect,  left  no  room 
for  conscience.  By  its  terms  the  Scots  were  definitely 
bound  to  support  the  Parliament  in  return  for  the  adoption 
and  promulgation  by  that  body  of  the  Presbyterian  form 
of  worship.  As  long  as  the  Parliament  lived  up  to  this 
undertaking  the  Scots  had  no  option  but  to  lend  the 
Parliament  their  armed  assistance,  but  the  moment  this 
ceased  to  be  the  case  the  choice  of  sides  became  once  more 
a  matter  of  individual  conscience, 


1648]  MONRO'S  REVOLT  FROM  THE  PARLIAMENT  345 

The  Independent  party,  which  was  by  now  beginning  to 
assume  control  of  the  country,  had  originally  been  formed 
by  Sir  Harry  Vane,  but  by  degrees,  as  the  party  grew  in 
importance,  the  leadership  passed  into  the  hands  of 
Cromwell,  and,  with  the  change,  the  old  sympathies  of  the 
Parliament  with  the  Presbyterian  movement  entirely 
disappeared.  The  Independents  were  composed  of  every 
conceivable  shade  of  Nonconformist,  and,  to  these,  the 
conformity  with  Presbyterianism  which  the  terms  of  the 
Covenant  exacted  was  little  less  abhorrent  than  conformity 
with  prelacy.  The  Covenant  was  renounced.  Presby- 
terianism and  prelacy  were  bracketed  as  joint  enemies  to 
that  freedom  of  worship  at  which  the  Independents  aimed, 
and  eventually  the  Presbyterian  members  were  expelled 
from  the  House  of  Commons,  and  the  Rump  Parliament, 
freed  from  any  restraining  influence,  breathed  destruction 
against  Presbyterians  and  Prelatists  alike.  Before  this 
astonishing  reversal  of  the  original  situation  the  Ulster 
Scots  for  a  time  stood  in  doubt.  Not  only  were  they  no 
longer  bound  to  the  Parliament  by  the  terms  of  a  Covenant 
which  the  latter  had  openly  violated,  but  they  even  had 
to  consider  whether  their  recent  allies  did  not  stand  out 
as  a  graver  danger  to  their  religious  liberties  than  the 
episcopalian  Royalists.  Both  Royalists  and  Parliamen- 
tarians were  ardently  wooing  their  support,  and  the 
burning  question  of  the  moment  with  one  and  all  was 
as  to  which  of  the  two  suitors  had  the  better  claim.  A 
traditional  distrust  of  the  episcopalian  Royalists  had  to 
be  weighed,  on  the  one  side,  against  the  avowed  hostility  of 
the  Independents  and  the  recent  treaty  which  the  King 
had  signed,  on  the  other  side.  Opinions  became  divided  ; 
some  clung  to  their  old  attachment,  while  others  denounced 
both  parties  as  equally  perfidious  and  refused  allegiance 
to  either.  The  revolt  from  the  Parliament — where  it 
did  occur — was  mainly  of  a  passive  character,  and  took 
the  form  of  a  refusal  of  service.  The  Lagan  Force  had 
been  the  first  to  adopt  this  form  of  protest.  The  Carrick- 
fergus  garrison  was  not  long  in  following  its  example. 

In  March  1648  Monck  wrote  ordering  the  transfer  of 
two  pieces  of  ordnance  from  Carrickfergus  to  Lisburn. 
Monro,  backed  up  by  the  officers  of  the  Carrickfergus 
garrison,  wrote  back  respectfully  but  firmly  refusing  to 
part  with  the  guns,  on  the  ground  that  he  was  responsible 


346  POLITICAL  CONSCIENCE  OF  ULSTER  SCOTS  [CHAP,  xi 

for  their  custody  and  could  not  consequently  let  them  out 
of  his  keeping.  Monck  had  no  means  at  the  moment  of 
enforcing  his  order,  and  had  to  swallow  the  affront  as  best 
he  could,  especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Monro — 
as  he  correctly  stated — had  been  put  in  charge  of  the 
guns  by  the  Parliament  of  which  he  was  still  nominally 
the  servant  and  supporter.  Monck  did  not,  however,  forget 
the  incident,  and  took  the  earliest  opportunity  of  claiming 
his  revenge.  The  excuse  which  he  sought  was  very  soon 
after  furnished  by  the  open  defection  of  the  Scottish 
General's  nephew,  Sir  George  Monro,  who  sailed  from 
Ulster,  at  the  head  of  a  mixed  force  of  Route  Highlanders 
and  Irish,  with  the  avowed  object  of  fighting  against  the 
Parliament  in  Scotland. 

It  was  generally  hinted  that  this  step  had  been  taken 
with  the  full  knowledge  and  approval  of  Sir  George's  uncle, 
General  Robert  Monro.  In  any  event,  this  was  the  view 
taken  by  Monck,  who  saw  in  the  defection  of  the  nephew, 
and  in  the  incident  of  the  Carrickfergus  garrison,  a  suffi- 
cient reason  for  arresting  the  uncle.  On  September  12, 
1648,  with  the  connivance  of  Major  Knox  and  Captain 
Cochrane,1  two  officers  of  the  garrison  who  had  personal 
grudges  against  Monro,  Monck  was  secretly  admitted 
during  the  night  into  Carrickfergus.  He  arrested  Monro 
in  his  bed.  The  Scottish  General  was  sent  off  to  London, 
where  he  spent  the  next  five  years  as  a  prisoner  in  the 
Tower,  "  but  what  was  against  him,"  remarks  the  author 
of  Warr  of  Ireland,  "  that  deserved  this  imprisonment  so 
long  was  kept  silent  from  me." 

The  Parliament  attached  the  greatest  importance  to 
Monro' s  capture,  and  showed  an  elation  which  was  so 
unaccountable,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  he  had  originally 
been  appointed  by  the  Parliament,  that  it  can  only  be 
supposed  that  they  had  some  secret  knowledge  of  his  inten- 
tion to  go  over  to  the  Royalists.  Monck  was  voted  £500 
"  for  this  extraordinary  service,"  and  all  the  preachers 
in  London  were  ordered  to  return  thanks  "  for  the  great 
mercy  of  surprising  the  Scots  General."  ! 

Monck  next  seized  Belfast,  and  sent  an  order  to  Lord 
Montgomery  and  Sir  James  Montgomery  to  join  him 
there  with  their  respective  regiments  for  the  purpose  of 

1  Cox  adds  the  name  of  Captain  Cunningham. 

2  Jlushworth,  vol.  vii  p,  1277, 


1648]         ARREST  OF  SIR  ROBERT  STEWART       34? 

an  attack  on  Coleraine.  Both  refused.  Monck  seems  to 
have  taken  their  refusal  in  good  part  and — dispensing 
with  their  aid — advanced  against  Coleraine  with  his  own 
troops.  No  opposition  was  offered  him,  and  he  took 
possession  of  the  town  in  the  name  of  the  Parliament. 

Carrickfergus  had  been  duly  punished  by  Monck  for 
its  refusal  to  send  guns  to  Lisburn ;  it  next  became  Sir 
Robert  Stewart's  turn  to  suffer  for  his  previous  act  of  insub- 
ordination against  Coote.  As  in  the  other  case,  subterfuge 
had  to  take  the  place  of  open  force.  The  two  mutinous 
Lagan  Force  leaders,  Sir  Robert  Stewart  and  Audley 
Mervyn,  after  their  insubordination  in  the  matter  of  the 
Connaught  expedition,  knew  well  enough  that  retribution 
was  in  store  for  them.  Coote  was  not  the  man  to  overlook 
any  attempt  to  thwart  his  will  or  dispute  his  authority. 
They  accordingly  withdrew  to  Culmore  Fort,  of  which 
Robert  Stewart  was  still  Governor,  where  they  adopted 
an  attitude  of  open  defiance.  The  Fort  boasted  no  fewer 
than  fourteen  guns,  and,  as  it  completely  commanded  the 
narrowest  part  of  the  Foyle,  Stewart  and  Mervyn  were 
able  to  stop  all  provision  ships  bound  for  Derry,  and  even 
to  compel  some  of  them  to  discharge  their  cargoes  at 
Culmore.  In  order  to  put  an  end  to  an  annoyance  which 
he  was  clearly  powerless  to  meet  by  force,  Coote  had 
recourse  to  strategy.  At  the  end  of  December  1648 
a  personal  friend  of  Stewart's  and  a  resident  in  Derry, 
named  Major  Erskine,  was  about  to  hold  a  baptismal 
ceremony  in  his  house,  which  he  invited  both  Robert 
Stewart  and  Audley  Mervyn  to  attend.  Coote,  by  some 
means,  had  full  knowledge  of  the  intended  visit  of  his 
two  enemies  from  Culmore,  and  Stewart  and  Mervyn 
were  arrested  at  Erskine' s  house  during  the  ceremony  and 
sent  to  England.1  Erskine,  the  unconscious  instrument 
of  their  capture,  was  himself  arrested  a  few  days  later 
and  sent  after  the  other  two.  The  charges  laid  against 
all  three  were  that  they  were  opposing  the  designs  of  the 
Independents. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  the  two  most  popular  leaders 
of  the  Lagan  Force, Coote  promptly  seized  Newtownstewart, 
Lifford  and  Castlederg,  and  sent  word  to  Sir  William  Cole 
in  Enniskillen  to  imprison  Colonel  Acheson,  Major  Graham, 
and  Captain  Ross,  all  of  whom  were  suspected  of  being  hostile 
1  Wbitelocke,  Memorials,  p.  367  ;  Reid,  vol.  ii.  p.  80. 


348  POLITICAL  CONSCIENCE  OF  ULSTER  SCOTS  [CHAP,  xi 

to  the  Independents.  Cole  returned  reply  that  the  three 
officers  named  were  very  popular  with  the  garrison  and 
that,  in  order  to  make  him  strong  enough  to  effect  their 
arrest,  he  must  ask  Coote  to  send  him  four  troops  of  horse. 
This  was  done,  and  the  three  officers  named  were  arrested 
and  imprisoned  ;  but  peace  was  by  no  means  thereby 
established,  as  the  Enniskillen  garrison  rose  as  one  man 
and  set  the  officers  free  ;  after  which  they  imprisoned 
Sir  William  Cole,  seized  £15,000  which  they  found  in  his 
house,  and  nominated  Colonel  Acheson  Governor.1  Inci- 
dents such  as  these  could  leave  no  room  for  doubt  that, 
in  spite  of  the  arrest  of  Monro,  the  hold  of  the  Parlia- 
ment on  the  territorial  troops  in  Ulster  was  precarious  in  the 
extreme.  The  most  disturbing  feature  in  the  situation  was 
the  reappearance  on  the  scene  of  Ormonde,  who  unexpec- 
tedly landed  at  Cork  on  September  29,  1648.  It  became 
evident  from  the  first  that  the  Lord-Lieutenant's  intentions 
were  actively  hostile.  He  lost  no  time  in  making  his  way 
to  Kilkenny,  which  he  reached  early  in  October,  and  where 
he  was  given  a  cordial  reception  by  the  members  of  the 
Supreme  Council,  of  which  body  from  this  time  onwards 
he  assumed  the  undisputed  control.  Ormonde,  in  his 
zeal  for  the  King's  service,  was,  in  fact,  driven  by  force 
of  circumstances  into  many  new  associations  with  which 
in  former  days  he  had  been  in  little  sympathy,  but  which 
now  constituted  the  only  driving  power  within  his  reach. 
The  Supreme  Council  of  Confederate  Catholics  at  Kilkenny 
had  ample  funds  and  considerable  armed  forces  at  their 
disposal.  No  matter  what  may  have  been  the  secret 
political  ends  of  the  Association  in  its  infancy,  there  could 
be  no  doubt  that  at  the  close  of  the  year  1648  its  policy 
was  simply  anti-parliamentarian.  In  other  words,  its  first 
and  foremost  aim  was  the  overthrow  of  the  growing  power 
of  the  Independent  Party  which  so  seriously  threatened 
its  civil  and  religious  liberties.  When  this  had  been 
accomplished  it  might  very  possibly  have  developed 
further  aims  with  which  Ormonde  would  not  have  been  in 
full  agreement ;  but  this  was  a  situation  which  there  was 
no  particular  advantage  in  anticipating.  For  the  time 
being  the  immediate  aims  of  Ormonde  and  of  the  Supreme 
Council  were  identical.  Ormonde — though  still  technically 

1  Humphrey  Galbraith  to  Ormonde,  January  26,   1649;  Carte,  vol.  ii. 
p.  69. 


1648]  THE  RETURN  OF  ORMONDE  34§ 

Lord-Lieutenant — was,  for  obvious  reasons,  debarred  from 
exercising  his  authority  through  the  ordinary  official 
channels.  The  only  executive  force  at  his  disposal  was  that 
behind  the  Supreme  Council,  and  of  this  force  he  took 
instant  command.  The  members  of  the  Supreme  Council, 
for  their  part,  were  overjoyed  at  the  prospect  of  the  great 
Marquis  making  common  cause  with  themselves.  He  was 
of  their  class  and  their  race,  sympathetic  with  them  in 
all  things  except  religion,  and  bound  to  them  by  neigh- 
bourly ties  extending  over  several  generations.  His 
association  with  them  was  essentially  a  natural  one,  as 
also  was  his  immediate  recognition  as  their  leader.  His 
high  social  rank,  his  official  position  as  Lord-Lieutenant, 
his  magnificent  physique  and  attractive  personality,  all 
marked  him  out  as  a  leader  of  men  in  any  sphere.  Ormonde 
had  left  Ireland  as  the  agent  of  an  English  King  who  had 
been  striving  to  make  peace  with  the  combined  Irish 
interests  as  represented  by  the  Supreme  Council.  He 
returned  as  the  gladly  accepted  head  of  the  body  with 
which  he  had  formerly  been  technically  at  war.  The 
execution  of  the  unfortunate  King,  four  months  after 
Ormonde's  landing,  enormously  extended  the  field  in 
which  the  Marquis  might  with  reasonableness  look  for 
support  in  his  campaign  against  the  Parliament,  and 
the  departure  of  the  Nuncio  a  month  later  removed  the 
only  possible  rival  who  might  have  disputed  his  position 
as  leader. 

From  the  moment  that  the  circumstances  surrounding 
the  King's  death  became  generally  known  a  wave  of 
indignation  had  swept  over  the  whole  of  Ulster.  Among 
the  Presbyterians,  the  fickleness  of  the  late  King,  his 
unreasoning  egoism,  and  even  his  Roman  Catholic  wife, 
were  forgotten.  All  that  was  remembered  was  that  one 
of  his  last  acts  had  been  to  sign  a  treaty  in  which  he 
undertook  to  support  the  Presbyterian  cause  against 
the  invading  tyranny  of  the  Independents.  He  became 
for  the  moment  a  martyr  to  his  principles,  foully  done  to 
death  by  religious  persecutors.  The  Scottish  Presbytery 
denounced  his  execution  as  "  unjustifiable  murder  and  as 
a  violation  of  the  Covenant,"  and,  following  this  example, 
the  Belfast  Presbytery  issued  a  public  protestation 
against  the  "  execrable  act  of  the  King's  execution,"  which 
was  further  denounced  as  being  "  contrary  to  the  wishes 


350  POLITICAL  CONSCIENCE  OF  ULSTER  SCOTS  [CHAP.  xi 

of  the  majority  of  this  people  and  of  their  representatives 
in  Parliament."  1  This  last  had  reference  to  the  forcible 
expulsion  from  the  House  of  Commons  of  all  but  the 
Independent  Rump.  The  publication  of  the  Eikon 
Basilike,  a  pamphlet  composed  by  a  Presbyterian  minister 
named  Gauden,  in  which  the  last  sufferings  of  the  martyred 
King  were  graphically  described,  tended  still  further  to 
inflame  popular  sentiment.  The  Scots,  in  an  outburst  of 
sudden  loyalty,  proclaimed  Charles  II  King,  and  sent 
an  Embassy  to  the  Hague  to  assure  him  of  their  devotion 
and  support.  On  the  strength  of  Charles  I's  Isle  of  Wight 
Treaty,  attempts  were  made  to  induce  the  young  King 
to  take  the  Covenant  on  the  spot,  but  to  this  length  he 
was  not  prepared  to  go.  He  stipulated  for  a  certain 
amount  of  time  in  which  to  consider  the  proposals  put 
forward,  and  with  this  the  envoys  had  for  the  time  being 
to  content  themselves. 

In  the  meanwhile  anti-parliamentarian  feeling  ran  very 
high  in  Ulster.  Commiseration  for  the  fate  of  the  late 
King,  coupled  with  undefined  hopes  in  the  possible 
beneficence  of  his  successor,  made  a  temporary  Royalist 
of  every  colonist  in  the  province.  As,  in  old  days,  a 
common  hatred  and  fear  of  the  Irish  had  welded  the 
Royalists  and  Parliamentarians  into  a  solid  body  of 
defence,  so  did  hatred  and  fear  of  the  Independents  now 
weld  English  Royalists  and  Scottish  Presbyterians  into 
a  more  or  less  solid  body  of  opposition  to  the  tyranny 
of  the  Parliament.  Of  the  two  the  Presbyterians  were 
at  first,  if  anything,  the  more  resolute  in  their  resist- 
ance. The  Covenant  was  renewed  throughout  the  pro- 
vince, and  both  Coote  and  Monck  were  urged  to  take 
it ;  both  refused.  Ormonde's  opportune  return  to  Ireland 
seemed  to  offer  an  obvious  rallying  point  for  all  who 
wished  to  give  practical  expression  to  the  detestation 
with  which  they  viewed  the  execution  of  the  late  King. 
The  Lagan  Force — as  in  1647 — was  once  again  the  first 
to  move  in  the  matter.  After  the  arrest  of  Sir  Robert 
Stewart  and  Audley  Mervyn,  Sir  Alexander  Stewart  (Sir 
William's  eldest  son)  had  taken  over  the  nominal  command 
of  the  Force,  but  he  had  neither  the  influence  nor  the 
enthusiasm  of  some  of  the  older  officers.  Colonel  Gal- 
braith,  who  as  a  young  man  had  so  greatly  distinguished 
1  Reid. 


1649]  THE   SIEGE  OF  BERRY  851 

himself  at  the  battle  of  Glenmaquin,  had,  of  all  the  original 
officers,  been  the  most  consistently  royalistic  in  his 
sympathies.  Of  this  fact  Ormonde  had  full  knowledge, 
and  before  he  had  been  many  days  at  Kilkenny  he  com- 
missioned Colonel  Arthur  Chichester  to  pay  a  visit  to 
Newtownstewart  with  a  view  to  sounding  Galbraith  as 
to  what  help  might  be  expected  from  the  Lagan  Force 
in  the  event  of  a  revival  of  the  royalist  movement  in 
Ulster.  Galbraith — being  a  cautious  Scot— returned  no 
direct  reply,  but  sent  down  Captain  Irvine  and  Captain 
Cunningham  to  find  out  from  Ormonde  himself  what  it  was 
exactly  that  the  latter  proposed.  These  two,  after  an 
interview  with  the  Marquis,  came  back  with  the  message 
that,  if  the  Lagan  Force  wished  to  serve  the  King,  it 
could  give  no  better  proof  of  its  devotion  than  by  capturing 
Derry  from  Coote.1  This  was  obviously  a  difficult  and 
dangerous  undertaking,  but  not  sufficiently  so  to  deter 
Galbraith,  who,  on  March  28,  1649,  opened  proceedings 
by  seizing  Carrigans  and  Newtowncunningham.  This  ini- 
tial act  of  hostility  was  very  shortly  afterwards  followed 
by  the  capture  of  a  quantity  of  wheat  which  was  on  its 
way  to  Derry  for  the  use  of  the  garrison. 

In  this  way  began  the  first  siege  of  Derry,  which — 
though  far  less  celebrated  than  the  second  siege  forty 
years  later — was  still  a  sufficiently  serious  affair.  It 
lasted  five  months,  and,  like  its  successor,  reduced  the 
defenders  to  terrible  straits  for  want  of  food.  Coote 
had  800  fresh  English  troops  inside  the  walls,  which 
constituted  the  entire  garrison,  for  it  does  not  appear 
that  any  of  the  original  seven  City  companies  remained 
with  him  in  opposition  to  their  comrades  outside.  At 
any  rate,  we  know  that  Mr.  Robert  Lawson  and  his  com- 
pany left  Derry  and  joined  the  Lagan  Force  at  Carrigans 
at  the  first  rumour  of  hostilities  between  Coote  and 
Galbraith.2 

Coote' s  preparations  for  the  siege  were  of  a  remarkably 
thorough  character.  He  cut  down  all  the  orchards  and 
gardens  surrounding  the  city,  and  levelled  the  banks  and 
hedges  so  as  to  deprive  the  enemy  of  all  cover.  Some 
of  his  sallies  met  with  striking  success.  On  April  23,  in 
the  course  of  one  of  these  ventures,  he  inflicted  on  the 
Lagan  Force  the  first  reverse  that  famous  corps  had  ever 

i  Reid.  2  Ibid. 

24 


352  POLITICAL  CONSCIENCE  OF  ULSTER  SCOTS  [CHAP,  xi 

experienced.  Twenty  men,  including  Major  Balfour  and 
Captain  Mattier,  were  killed,  and  Colonel  Galbraith, 
Majors  Hamilton  and  Graham  and  forty  men  were  taken 
prisoners.  The  capture  of  Galbraith  would  have  been  a 
signal  triumph  for  Coote  had  he  been  able  to  retain  his 
prisoner.  As  it  was,  he  was  forced  almost  immediately 
to  exchange  him  for  food,  of  which  the  garrison  was  in 
sore  need.  So  scarce  indeed  had  food  become  that,  in 
announcing  his  success  to  the  Parliament,  Coote  was 
forced  to  admit  that  without  speedy  relief  he  would  in- 
evitably have  to  surrender.1  He  sent  urgent  appeals  for 
help  to  Monck,  but  Monck  pleaded  inability  to  move, 
and  no  help  came  from  that  quarter.  Then  it  was  that, 
in  his  extremity,  Coote  was  forced  to  exchange  thirty 
out  of  his  forty  prisoners,  including  the  three  captured 
officers,  for  thirty  bolls  of  the  wheat  which  had  been 
originally  destined  for  the  garrison,  but  which  Galbraith 
had  intercepted  and  seized.8 

On  May  26  Sir  Robert  Stewart  and  Audley  Mervyn 
rejoined  the  Lagan  Force,  having  escaped  from  London, 
where  it  would  appear  that  they  were  but  lightly  guarded. 
Sir  Robert  brought  with  him  a  commission  from  Charles  II 
appointing  him  to  the  command  of  the  five  regiments  of 
the  Lagan  Force.3  In  face  of  authority  such  as  this, 
backed  up  by  the  unanimous  feeling  of  the  corps,  Sir  Alex- 
ander Stewart  had  no  option  but  to  resign  his  command, 
and  he  at  once  crossed  over  to  Scotland,  where  he  was 
shortly  afterwards  killed  at  the  battle  of  Dunbar.  Gal- 
braith willingly  resumed  his  old  subordinate  position. 

The  arrival  on  the  scene  of  the  old  Lagan  Force  com- 
manders was  productive  of  no  startling  change  in  the 
Deny  situation,  and  from  May  to  July  the  siege  dragged 
on  uneventfully.  In  the  latter  month  a  new  aspect 
was  imparted  to  the  operations  outside  the  walls  by  the 
arrival  among  the  besiegers  of  Sir  George  Monro  at  the 
head  of  a  considerable  force  of  native  Irish  and  Route 
Highlanders.  Sir  George  had  left  Ulster  for  Scotland  in 
the  early  spring  of  1648.  After  an  absence  of  little  more 
than  a  year,  he  returned  with  a  commission  which  he 
claimed  (and  possibly  with  justice)  to  have  received  from 
Charles  II,  and  with  an  enthusiasm  for  the  royal  cause 
which  knew  no  bounds  and  which  stopped  short  at  nothing. 

1  Whitelocke,  Memorials,  p.  397.         a  Reid.         =»  Carte,  vol.  ii.  p.  77. 


1649]  SIR  GEORGE  MONRO  353 

Ormonde  recognised  his  commission,  but — being  in  no 
mood  to  part  with  any  of  his  own  English  soldiers — 
put  him  in  command  of  a  mixed  force  of  1,700  native 
Irish  and  Route  Highlanders,  with  which  Sir  George 
commenced  operations  by  making  a  sudden  descent 
upon  Coleraine.  This  town,  like  most  of  the  rest  of  Ulster, 
was  no  doubt  only  too  glad  of  an  excuse  for  shaking  off 
the  parliamentary  yoke.  It  was  peaceably  yielded  up, 
and  Sir  George  then  passed  on  to  Antrim  and  Lisburn, 
both  of  which  places  followed  the  example  of  Coleraine 
and  hauled  down  the  parliamentary  flag  on  the  appearance 
of  the  royalist  force.1  Monck,  alarmed  by  the  sudden 
change  of  public  opinion  in  Ulster,  had  already  evacuated 
Lisburn  and  withdrawn  out  of  the  province  to  Dundalk, 
which  he  thenceforth  constituted  his  headquarters. 

The  capture  for  Charles  II  of  Coleraine,  Antrim  and 
Lisburn  by  Sir  George  Monro  was,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  a 
purely  technical  triumph,  for  Ormonde  had  given  the  most 
emphatic  orders  that  both  the  Irish  and  the  Route  High- 
landers were  to  be  used  exclusively  as  field  forces,  and 
were  on  no  account  to  be  left  in  any  Castle  or  fortress  as 
garrisons.  As  Sir  George  had  nothing  else  to  leave,  the 
only  change  effected  by  his  nominal  capture  of  the  three 
towns  was  an  official  change  of  allegiance,  to  which  none 
of  the  towns  concerned  had  any  objection. 

On  June  17  Sir  George  appeared  before  Carrickfergus. 
Here,  for  the  first  time,  he  met  with  passive  resistance. 
Major  Ellis,  who  held  the  command  for  the  Parliament, 
had  only  a  weak  garrison,  but  he  managed  to  keep  Sir 
George  out  for  a  week  while  he  sent  an  urgent  appeal  to 
Coomber,  begging  Lord  Montgomery  to  bring  his  regiment 
to  his  aid.  Montgomery  responded  with  alacrity,  but 
no  sooner  was  he  and  his  regiment  inside  the  walls  than 
he  declared  himself  for  King  Charles  II,  took  forcible 
possession  of  the  place,  deposed  Ellis  and  placed  Colonel 
Dalziel  in  command.  Sir  George,  who  had  previously 
arranged  the  entire  plot  with  Montgomery,  did  not  wait 
to  share  in  his  fellow-conspirator's  triumph,  but — the 
moment  Montgomery  was  inside  the  walls — led  his  Irish 
west  to  assist  Clanricarde  in  his  attempt  to^  recapture 
Sligo.  This  important  place  had  now  for  five  T^ars  been 
occupied  by  Colonel  Saunderson's  regiment  of  thev  Lagan 

1  Warr  of  Ireland. 


354  POLITICAL  CONSCIENCE  OF  ULSTER  SCOTS  [CHAP,  xi 

Force,  which  had  successfully  resisted  every  attempt  to 
recapture  it.  Sir  Robert  Stewart  had  been  appointed  by 
Coote  Governor  of  the  town  on  the  occasion  of  its  first 
capture  in  1644  (a  circumstance  which  Audley  Mervyn, 
who  coveted  the  post,  is  said  never  to  have  forgiven),1 
and  he  now  exercised  his  authority  by  sending  Saunderson 
a  written  order  to  surrender  the  town  to  the  representatives 
of  the  royalist  cause,  and  to  rejoin  the  Lagan  Force  before 
the  walls  of  Derry.  Saunderson  had  no  option  but  to 
obey  such  an  order,  and  on  July  7  he  set  out  northwards, 
accompanied,  much  against  his  will,  by  Sir  George  Monro 
with  his  wild  following.1  The  addition  of  the  latter  to 
the  besieging  force  was  viewed  with  anything  but  favour 
by  the  members  of  the  Lagan  Force.  The  latter  were 
Presbyterian  almost  to  a  man,  while  Sir  George's  men  were 
all  Roman  Catholics,  and  the  two  had  but  very  lately 
been  at  one  another's  throats.  No  open  rupture,  however, 
between  the  two  discordant  elements  took  place  till  the 
arrival  on  the  scene  of  Lord  Montgomery. 

This  young  man,  after  his  successful  seizure  of  Carrick- 
fergus,  had  passed  on  to  Lisburn,  where  he  caused  himself 
to  be  proclaimed  Command er-in-Chief,  in  the  King's  name, 
of  all  the  British  forces  in  Ulster.  After  spending  a 
fortnight  in  his  new  headquarters,  he  too  went  on  to  the 
siege  of  Derry,  which  was  now  the  only  town  in  Ulster 
held  for  the  Parliament,  and  which  was  in  consequence 
the  focus -point  of  all  eyes.  Montgomery  joined  the 
investing  force  on  July  26,  and,  as  his  first  act,  summoned 
the  City  to  surrender  to  King  Charles  II.  Coote  flatly 
refused,  and  on  July  28  Montgomery  ordered  a  general 
assault  of  the  city.  The  assault  was  a  failure.  The 
assailants  were  repulsed  with  the  loss  of  Captain  Flemming, 
Lieutenant  McClelland  and  forty  men  who  were  killed;  while 
Colonel  Galbraith,  who  was  always  to  the  front  when  there 
was  fighting,  was  at  the  same  time  very  severely  wounded.3 

A  far  more  serious  matter  for  the  besiegers  than  this 
reverse  was  the  arrival  outside  Derry  shortly  afterwards  of 
emissaries  from  the  Belfast  Presbytery  urging  on  the 
Lagan  Force  the  abandonment  of  the  siege  on  the  ground 
that  their  participation  in  it  was  contrary  to  the  terms 
of  the  Covenant.  Two  events  were  responsible  for  this 

1  Hibernia  Anglicana.  8  Confederation  and  War. 

8  Reid,  vol.  ii.  p.  132. 


1649]  THE  BELFAST  PRESBYTERY  TAKES  ACTION  355 

sudden  and  startling  change  of  front  on  the  part  of  the 
Belfast  Presbytery.  The  first  had  been  Montgomery's 
questionable  behaviour  in  connection  with  the  transfer 
of  Carrickfergus  into  royalist  keeping.  As  far  as  can  be 
gathered  it  was  not  so  much  the  capture  of  the  place  for 
the  royalist  interest,  as  the  treacherous  way  in  which  it 
was  done,  which  excited  the  resentment  of  the  Belfast 
Presbytery.  In  any  event,  this  body  met  shortly  afterwards 
at  Bangor  and  passed  a  unanimous  vote  of  censure  against 
Montgomery,  on  account  of  what  they  styled  his  "  treacher- 
ous betrayal  of  the  town."  He  was  further  denounced, 
on  grounds  which  are  less  clear,  as  an  upholder  and  promoter 
of  episcopacy. 

The  other  event  which  excited  the  suspicion  of  the 
Belfast  Presbytery  was  the  arrival  before  Deny  walls  of 
Sir  George  Monro's  Roman  Catholic  army.  When,  a 
fortnight  later,  Montgomery  also  joined  the  besieging 
force,  it  seemed  clear  to  the  members  of  the  Presbytery 
that  the  Lagan  Force  was  in  danger  of  being  involved 
in  the  meshes  of  episcopacy,  or  even  worse,  and  emissaries 
were  despatched  to  warn  them  of  the  evil  influences  which 
were  in  their  midst. 

Such  were  the  surface  reasons  given  for  the  sudden  change 
of  attitude  on  the  part  of  the  executive  body  which  governed 
the  Presbyterian  conscience.  It  is  highly  probable  that 
the  two  incidents  above  referred  to  were  not  without 
their  influence  on  the  situation ;  but  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  the  main  factor  in  the  case  was  the  failure  of 
the  young  King  to  live  up  to  his  promises  and  subscribe 
to  the  Covenant.  Six  months  had  passed  since  the 
Presbyterian  envoys  had  assured  Charles  of  their  un- 
alterable support  if  only  he  would  take  the  Covenant. 
The  King  had  asked  for  time,  and  time  had  been  given 
him,  but  half  a  year  had  passed  since  the  Hague  meeting 
and  no  signs  of  compliance  with  their  petition  were  as 
yet  forthcoming.  Charles's  long  hesitation  was  taken — 
and  justly  taken — as  a  sign  of  his  inherent  reluctance 
to  meet  the  wishes  of  the  Scots,  and,  as  this  feeling  spread, 
the  enthusiasm  for  his  cause  which  had  followed  upon 
the  execution  of  his  father  began  to  wane.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  it  was  not  till  over  a  year  after  he  had  been  inter- 
viewed at  the  Hague  that  Charles  II  actually  took  the 
Covenant,  The  delay  proved  fatal  to  his  cause  in  Ulster. 


356  POLITICAL  CONSCIENCE  OF  ULSTER  SCOTS  [CHAP,  xi 

It  was  assumed — and  not  without  reason — that  if  the 
King  was  not  with  them  he  was  against  them,  and,  if 
he  was  against  them,  it  automatically  followed  that  his 
avowed  adherents,  such  as  Montgomery  and  Sir  George 
Monro,  were  also  against  them.  With  these  and  similar 
suspicions  working  at  the  back  of  the  mind  of  the  Presbytery, 
incidents  such  as  the  treachery  of  Montgomery  and  the 
presence  before  the  walls  of  Deny  of  Sir  George  Monro' s 
Roman  Catholics  assumed  an  exaggerated  and  sinister 
importance,  and  delegates  were  sent  to  detach  the  members 
of  the  Lagan  Force  from  their  dangerous  associates. 

On  arrival  at  Derry,  the  Belfast  emissaries  used  all  the 
arguments  with  which  they  were  armed  to  prove  that  Mont- 
gomery— who,  by  virtue  of  his  commission  as  Commander- 
in-Chief,  had  assumed  command  of  the  investing  army 
immediately  on  his  arrival — was  really  working  against 
the  Covenant,  with  the  idea  of  enforcing  episcopacy 
on  the  province,  in  substantiation  of  which  attention 
was  drawn  to  the  active  co-operation  in  the  siege  of 
John  Leslie,  Bishop  of  Raphoe.  The  presence  of  Sir 
George  Monro  and  his  Roman  Catholics  was  also  pointed 
to  as  an  additional  proof  of  Montgomery's  dark  designs. 
The  spirit  of  the  Covenant,  it  was  argued,  was  being 
infringed  by  the  participation  in  the  siege  of  these  anta- 
gonistic elements.  The  particular  oath  known  as  the 
Covenant  was  so  framed  as  to  lend  itself  to  many  and 
varied  interpretations.  Strictly  speaking  there  was  no 
Covenant  in  active  operation  at  the  time.  The  Solemn 
League  and  Covenant  between  the  old  Parliament  and 
the  Scots  was  obviously  dead,  and,  in  its  absence,  en- 
thusiasts had  to  fall  back  on  the  old  Covenant  with  God, 
which,  from  its  very  nature,  was  indestructible.  The 
old  Covenant  indeed  was  particularly  applicable  to  the 
case,  for  its  two  arch  enemies,  prelacy  and  papacy,  were 
fittingly  represented  on  the  present  occasion  by  Mont- 
gomery and  Sir  George  Monro.  The  arguments  of  the 
delegates  were  recognised  as  sound  and  had  their  immediate 
effect.  Colonel  Saunderson,  several  members  of  the  Gore 
family,  and  a  number  of  other  officers  and  men  of  the  Lagan 
Force  abandoned  the  siege  and  dispersed  to  their  homes. 
Lord  Montgomery,  Sir  Robert  Stewart,  Audley  Mervyn 
and  Sir  George  Monro  continued  operations.  Encouraged 
by  this  weakening  of  the  investing  force,  Coote,  in  the 


1649]        SUCCESSFUL   SALLY  FROM  DERRY  857 

first  days  of  August,  sent  out  a  strong  raiding  party  under 
Captains  St.  John  and  Taylor,  which  achieved  considerable 
successes,  burning  Carrigans,  St.  Johnstone  and  Newtown- 
cunningham,  and  capturing  several  field-pieces.1  In  spite, 
however,  of  such  minor  successes,  the  position  of  the  Derry 
garrison  remained  very  serious  owing  to  continued  shortage 
of  food,  and  Coote  lost  no  opportunity  of  impressing  upon 
the  Parliament  that,  unless  speedy  help  was  forthcoming, 
he  would  be  compelled  to  surrender.  The  help  which 
eventually  forced  the  abandonment  of  the  siege  did  not, 
however,  come  from  the  Parliament,  but  from  the  most 
unexpected  of  all  quarters. 

i  Whitelocke,  Memorials,  p.  44. 


CHAPTER    XII 

THE   RISE   AND   FALL   OF   ORMONDE 

JAMES  BUTLER,  Earl,  Marquis  and  afterwards  Duke  of 
Ormonde,  narrowly  missed  being  a  very  great  man.  He 
was  certainly  a  very  gallant  one.  Critics  will  be  found 
who  may  deny  his  claim  to  greatness,  but  few  will  be 
found  to  question  his  energy  and  sincerity  of  purpose  in 
all  that  he  undertook.  Little  less  admirable,  in  a  day 
when  most  men  sat  on  the  political  fence,  was  his  un- 
swerving adherence,  through  all  vicissitudes,  to  the  party 
with  which  he  first  threw  in  his  lot.  His  failure  to  carry 
matters  successfully  through  may  be  attributed  to  a 
variety  of  causes,  but  among  these  we  can  certainly  not 
include  lack  of  either  energy  or  enthusiasm.  During  his 
leadership  of  the  Supreme  Council  he  instilled  into  that 
body  a  spirit  of  activity  to  which  it  had  hitherto  been 
a  complete  stranger.  His  first  aim  was  to  wipe  out 
all  the  petty  jealousies  which  had  so  far  kept  the  various 
anti-parliamentary  interests  in  Ireland  apart.  In  this 
enterprise  he  met  with  a  remarkable  success  which  was  only 
marred  by  one  notable  failure.  His  first  and  most  im- 
portant recruit  was  the  one-time  royalist  Inchiquin,  who 
was  easily  persuaded  to  shake  himself  free  of  his  late 
discreditable  connection  with  the  Parliament,  and  to 
accept  a  position  as  second  in  command  to  the  com- 
bined forces  which  were  being  prepared  for  active 
service  against  Jones,  Coote  and  Monck.  Almost  as 
important  as  his  capture  of  Inchiquin  had  been  his  con- 
version of  the  Lagan  Force.  Prior  to  the  interference  of 
the  Belfast  Presbytery,  he  had  managed  to  gain  over 
practically  the  whole  of  that  corps.  Even  after  the 
mission  of  the  Belfast  envoys,  as  above  described,  he 
retained  the  support  of  a  fair  proportion  of  its  members. 
The  Pale  Lords  had  rallied  to  his  standard  in  a  solid  body. 

358 


1649]      OWEN  ROE  NEGOTIATES  WITH  JONES    859 

The  one  case  in  which  he  had  to  admit  failure  was  that 
of  Owen  Roe. 

Owen  Roe,  after  six  years  spent  in  unsuccessful  pursuit 
of  the  objects  with  which  he  had  come  to  Ireland,  had  at 
length,  under  continued  hostile  pressure  from  both  foes 
and  nominal  friends,  definitely  abandoned  his  patriotic 
aims  and  had  adopted  the  attitude  of  an  independent 
force  holding  the  balance  of  power  between  Royalists 
and  Parliamentarians.  A  position  such  as  this  of  necessity 
carried  with  it  a  considerable  commercial  value,  and  Owen 
Roe  was  eagerly  approached  by  both  parties.  At  first  it 
would  seem  that  he  overrated  the  price  he  could  command, 
for  no  business  resulted.  Jones  appears  to  have  been  the 
first  to  open  negotiations,  for  in  August  1648  we  find 
the  Supreme  Council  issuing  a  proclamation  in  which 
Owen  Roe  was  accused  of  treacherous  intrigues  with 
Jones.1  These  intrigues,  in  any  case,  came  to  nothing, 
presumably  owing  to  an  inability  on  the  part  of  the 
principals  to  agree  terms,  and  it  then  became  Ormonde's 
turn  to  make  a  bid  for  the  services  of  the  Ulster  chief. 
Here  again,  however,  Owen  Roe's  terms  proved  too 
high  and  negotiations  had  to  be  broken  off.  The  point 
in  dispute  in  this  case  was  as  to  the  number  of  troops 
that  Owen  Roe  should  be  allowed  to  keep  at  the  expense 
of  the  Supreme  Council's  funds.  Ormonde  was  willing 
to  allow  him  4,000,  but  Owen  Roe  stood  out  stubbornly 
for  6,000,  and  to  this  Ormonde — having  no  doubt  a  shrewd 
suspicion  that  the  6,000  might  in  certain  eventualities  be 
used  against  him — refused  to  agree.  In  disappointment 
at  this  second  failure,  Owen  Roe  once  more  opened  negotia- 
tions with  Jones,  through  the  medium  of  Edmund  O'Reilly, 
the  Vicar-General.  It  is  to  be  assumed  that  on  this 
occasion  there  was  a  distinct  modification  in  Owen  Roe's 
demands,  but  the  exact  arrangement  arrived  at  is  not 
known,  as  we  are  told  that  the  terms  agreed  were  kept 
secret  from  all  by  the  two  principals  concerned.  The 
immediate  result,  however,  was  that,  as  a  preliminary 
measure,  Jones  supplied  Owen  Roe  with  powder  in  return 
for  grazing  facilities  for  some  of  Jones's  cattle,  of  which  the 
latter  was  sorely  in  need.8  The,  whole  arrangement  was 
verbal,  for  it  would  appear  that  Jones  had  the  firmest  faith 

1  Gilbert's  Contemp.  Hist.,  Preface. 

*  "  A  Relation  from  Ireland,"  April  13,  1649. 


360    THE  RISE  AND  FALL  OF  ORMONDE    [CHAP,  xn 

in  the  inviolability  of  Owen  Roe's  given  word.  When 
Ormonde  shortly  afterwards  wrote  in  disparaging  terms 
of  the  Parliament's  new  ally,  Jones's  reply  was  that  in  his 
opinion  Owen  Roe  was  "  a  more  real  and  honourable  man 
than  any  of  Ormonde's  present  associates  "  1  (presumably 
on  the  Supreme  Council). 

Owen  Roe's  first  act  of  service  to  the  Parliament  (perhaps 
not  entirely  uninfluenced  by  his  own  private  inclinations) 
was  a  visit  to  Kinard,  where  he  burned  all  that  remained 
of  Sir  Phelim's  property,  cut  down  all  his  orchards  and 
devastated  the  surrounding  country.8  His  next  venture 
in  the  interests  of  his  new  allies  was  less  happy. 

As  early  as  the  beginning  of  May  Sir  Charles  Coote 
had  realised  that  starvation  might  eventually  force  him 
to  the  surrender  of  Deny,  and  he  sent  his  brother  Richard 
and  Major  Ormsby  to  treat  with  Owen  Roe  for  the  im- 
mediate service  of  his  army  against  the  investing  force. 
It  is  probable  that  these  overtures  of  Coote' s  were  the 
outcome  of  Jones's  previous  negotiations,  of  which  Coote 
undoubtedly  had  knowledge.  In  the  course  of  the  con- 
ference (which  took  place  at  Newtownbutler)  Owen  Roe 
asked,  as  the  price  of  his  services,  for  thirty  barrels  of 
powder  and  400  beeves,  or  £400  in  money,  at  the  option 
of  Coote.  The  two  delegates  agreed  these  terms,  but  when 
they  got  back  to  Deny  Sir  Charles  refused  to  ratify  them 
and  the  whole  arrangement  fell  through.3  Owen  Roe  at 
once  turned  his  attention  to  Monck  at  Dundalk,  who, 
though  by  no  means  as  hard  pressed  as  Coote,  was  never- 
theless in  an  isolated  and  perilous  position.  The  two 
quickly  struck  a  bargain  on  terms  which  Colonel  O'Neil 
tells  us  were  identical  with  those  which  had  already  been 
submitted  to  and  refused  by  Coote.  Monck  gave  his 
new  ally  some  cattle  for  the  immediate  use  of  his  army, 
and  an  undertaking  to  supply  him  with  the  requisite 
powder  as  soon  as  the  occasion  for  its  use  arose.  The 
occasion  was  not  long  delayed.  In  June  Inchiquin  joined 
Ormonde's  camp  with  2,000  of  his  Munster  troops.  The 
Lord-Lieutenant,  who  resented  being  kept  out  of  Dublin 
Castle  by  those  whom  he  rightly  regarded  as  usurping 
rebels,  was  at  the  time  wholly  bent  on  the  recapture  of 

1  Aphorismical  Disc.  vol.  ii.  p.  17. 
8  Sir  Phelim  to  Ormonde,  April  1649. 
3  Relation  of  Colonel  O'Neil. 


1649]  TREVOR  CAPTURES  OWEN  ROE'S  POWDER  361 

the  capital,  and  had  but  little  inclination  for  personally 
conducting  any  minor  excursions.  In  the  circumstances 
Inchiquin's  arrival  was  most  opportune,  and,  with  3,000 
of  Ormonde's  men  added  to  his  own  2,000,  he  was  sent 
up  to  effect  the  capture  of  Drogheda  and  Dundalk,  which 
were  still  held,  but  with  little  enthusiasm,  for  the  Parlia- 
ment. Drogheda  surrendered  the  moment  the  siege-guns 
were  placed  in  position,  and  Sir  Thomas  Armstrong,  Sir 
Patrick  Wemyss  and  Colonel  Mark  Trevor,  with  800  of 
the  English  garrison,  declared  themselves  for  the  cause  of 
King  Charles  II,  and  joined  Inchiquin.1  Monck's  position 
at  Dundalk  was  now  precarious  in  the  extreme,  and  he  sent 
an  urgent  message  to  Owen  Roe,  who  was  with  his  army  at 
Glasdromin, bidding  him  come  to  his  aid  without  a  moment's 
delay.  He  added  at  the  same  time  that,  if  Owen  Roe 
would  send  a  party  to  fetch  the  powder  agreed  upon, 
he  would  hand  over  twenty  barrels  and  a  corresponding 
quantity  of  match  and  bullets.  In  accordance  with 
this  arrangement  Owen  Roe  sent  a  detachment  of  1,400 
men,  to  whom  the  ammunition  was  duly  handed  over, 
and  who  set  out  with  it  on  their  return  journey  to 
Owen  Roe's  camp.  In  the  meanwhile  Inchiquin,  who 
was  in  Drogheda,  had  been  fully  informed  of  all  the 
plans  in  connection  with  the  proposed  transfer  of 
ammunition,  and  Colonel  Mark  Trevor,  the  recent  con- 
vert, was  sent  north  with  six  troops  of  horse  to  interfere 
with  the  carrying  out  of  the  transaction  if  possible.  In 
this  undertaking  he  succeeded  beyond  expectation.  He 
managed  to  intercept  Owen  Roe's  men  on  their  return 
journey,  killed  500  of  them,  put  the  rest  to  flight, 
and  captured  all  the  ammunition  with  which  Monck  had 
just  supplied  them.2  Overcome  by  this  unexpected 
blow,  Owen  Roe  made  no  further  attempt  to  co- 
operate with  Monck,  but  dejectedly  retired  with  his 
army  to  Clones.' 

Inchiquin  at  once  invested  Dundalk,  and,  after  two 
days'  siege,  the  garrison  forced  their  commander  to  sur- 
render and  went  over  in  a  body  to  Inchiquin,  declaring 
that  they  would  no  longer  serve  under  a  commander  who 
leagued  himself  with  the  native  Irish.4  Colonel  Trevor, 
in  recognition  of  his  remarkable  achievement,  was  made 

1  Whitelocke,  Memorials,  p.  415.         3  Relation  of  Colonel  O'Neil. 

1  Ibid.,  p.  416.  *  Whitelocke,  Memorials,  p.  417. 


362    THE  RISE  AND  FALL  OF  ORMONDE    [CHAP,  xn 

Governor  of  Dundalk.  Newry,  Carlingford,  Narrow- water 
and  Greencastle  surrendered  next  day. 

Probably  because  of  its  failure,  and  because  of  the 
loss  of  much  valued  powder,  Monck's  attempted  alliance 
with  Owen  Roe  was  very  severely  criticised  by  the  Parlia- 
ment in  England,  who,  on  August  10,  passed  a  vote  to 
the  effect  "  that  this  House  doth  utterly  disapprove  of 
the  proceedings  of  Colonel  Monck  in  the  treaty  and  Cessa- 
tion made  between  him  and  Owen  Roe  O'Neil,  and  that 
the  innocent  blood  that  has  been  shed  in  Ireland  is  so 
fresh  in  the  memory  of  this  House  that  this  House  doth 
detest  and  abhor  the  thought  of  closing  with  any  party 
of  popish  rebels  who  had  their  hands  in  the  shedding  of 
that  blood."  Coote,  according  to  Richard  Cox,  was  also 
involved  in  the  vote  of  censure,  but  not  to  the  same  extent 
as  Monck.  Jones  appears  to  have  been  altogether 
exempted. 

The  fortunes  of  the  Marquis  of  Ormonde  had  now 
registered  their  highwater-mark.  The  astonishing  rapidity 
with  which  he  had  overrun  and  captured  the  whole  of 
Ireland  was  only  to  be  equalled  by  the  corresponding 
rapidity  with  which  he  was  to  lose  all  that  he  had  gained. 
At  the  end  of  July  1649  Dublin  and  Deny  were  the  only 
towns  not  in  Ormonde's  hands,  and  the  position  of 
the  latter  was  so  shaky  that  its  downfall  might  reasonably 
have  been  expected  at  any  moment.  Few  would  have 
had  the  temerity  to  prophesy  that,  within  two  months, 
his  power  would  have  been  completely  broken  and  he 
himself  a  hunted  fugitive. 

Owen  Roe  had  hardly  reached  Clones  before  he  was 
once  more  approached  by  Coote,  who  now  expressed  his 
willingness  to  agree  to  the  terms  which  he  had  rejected 
in  May.  It  is  doubtful  whether  Coote  had  heard  of  the 
overthrow  of  Owen  Roe's  men  by  Trevor  when  he  made 
this  offer.  He  was  in  ever-increasing  difficulties  with 
regard  to  food.  The  reinforcement  of  the  investing  army 
by  the  addition  of  Lord  Montgomery's  and  Sir  George 
Monro's  forces  more  than  counterbalanced  the  defections 
in  the  Lagan  Force,  and  made  it  clear  that  some  quick 
and  desperate  remedy  was  called  for  if  he  was  to  avoid 
surrender.  Carte  says  that  Coote  offered  Owen  Roe  £5,000 
to  come  to  his  assistance.  This  is  hardly  credible,  but  that 
Owen  Roe  took  advantage  of  Coote's  necessity  in  order 


1649]  THE  RELIEF  OF  DERRY  363 

to  increase  his  demands  is  fairly  certain.  Mulhollan  says 
that  his  new  demands  were  for  forty  barrels  of  powder 
and  1,000  beeves.  All  agree  that  he  was  paid  the  price 
for  which  he  stipulated  but  only  after  considerable  delay. 
However,  the  actual  terms  agreed  upon  are  a  matter  of  little 
moment.  The  point  of  importance  is  that  certain  terms 
were  arranged  and  that  on  August  7  Owen  Roe  marched 
north  with  4,000  foot  and  300  horse  and  encamped  at 
Ballykelly  in  Co.  Londonderry,  on  the  opposite  side  of 
the  Foyle  to  the  beleaguered  city.1  By  this  time  the 
greater  part  of  the  Lagan  Force  had  abandoned  the  siege, 
the  continuance  of  which  was  left  to  Montgomery  and 
Sir  George  Monro.  These  two  clearly  considered  the 
new  combination  against  them  too  strong  for  their  numbers, 
for,  on  the  arrival  of  Owen  Roe,  they  at  once  raised  the 
siege  and  made  off,  Montgomery  withdrawing  with  his 
troops  into  Co.  Down,  while  Sir  George  Monro  marched 
his  following  to  Coleraine.  The  coast  being  now  clear, 
Owen  Roe  crossed  the  Foyle  and  made  a  triumphal  entry 
into  the  Maiden  City,  where  he  had  an  enthusiastic  recep- 
tion, and  where  Coote,  we  are  told,  "  treated  him  nobly."  ! 
It  is  probable  in  the  extreme  that  the  hasty  withdrawal 
of  Montgomery  and  Sir  George  Monro  was  due,  not  only 
to  the  arrival  on  the  scene  of  Owen  Roe,  but  to  the  dis- 
quieting news  which  must  by  that  time  have  reached  them 
of  the  complete  overthrow  of  the  Marquis  of  Ormonde  a 
week  earlier  at  Rathmines.  This  disastrous  defeat, 
which  practically  decided  the  fate  of  Ireland,  was  brought 
about  as  follows :  On  July  25  reinforcements  from 
England  had  reached  Dublin  in  the  shape  of  two  regiments 
commanded  by  Colonel  Venables  and  Colonel  Reynolds. 
It  is  very  doubtful  whether — even  with  these  additional 
forces — Jones  would  have  risked  an  engagement  with 
Ormonde's  army,  which  numbered,  according  to  some 
accounts,  8,000,  and  according  to  others  16,000,  and 
which  was  certainly  well  equipped  with  all  the  essentials 
of  war.  However,  as  events  turned  out,  an  engagement 
was  forced  upon  him  whether  he  wished  it  or  not.  Jones 
was  so  closely  besieged  that  he  had  but  one  meadow, 
just  outside  the  walls  at  Baggotrath,  where  his  horses 
could  get  grazing.  It  occurred  to  Ormonde  that,  if 
earthworks  were  thrown  up  in  the  course  of  a  single 

1  Reid.  2  Relation  of  Colonel  O'Neil. 


364    THE  RISE  AND  FALL  OF  ORMONDE    [CHAP,  xn 

night,  so  as  to  command  the  meadow,  Jones  would  be 
deprived  of  his  only  means  of  feeding  his  horses,  which 
would  in  consequence  starve.  The  earthworks  were 
accordingly  started  on  the  night  of  August  1,  but  Jones 
had  information  of  the  intended  scheme,  and,  while  they 
were  still  in  course  of  construction,  he  sallied  out  with 
the  bulk  of  his  army  and  put  the  protecting  force  of  1,500 
men  to  flight.  Sir  William  Vaughan,  who  was  in  command, 
was  killed.  "  Whereupon,"  Richard  Sellings,  who  was  pre- 
sent with  Ormonde's  forces,  tells  us,  "  all  those  in  the  left 
wing  (except  the  regiments  of  Colonel  Butler  and  Colonel 
Mulmore  O'Reilly)  ran  away  against  their  officers'  utmost 
endeavours  to  stay  them,  without  once  facing  the  enemy, 
who,  gaining  field  after  field,  came  up  to  the  ordnance 
and  thus  to  the  rear  of  the  Lord-Lieutenant,  where  a  party 
of  Colonel  Giffard's  foot  gave  good  fire  for  some  time  upon 
them.  But,  upon  discovery  of  another  party  of  the 
enemy  marching  to  their  front,  some  called  for  quarter  and 
others  threw  down  their  arms."  l 

Ormonde  himself,  according  to  his  enemies,  was  playing 
dice,8  and,  according  to  his  friends,  was  snatching  a  few 
moments'  sleep  after  writing  despatches  all  night,3  when  the 
battle  started.  In  any  event,  it  was  some  time  before  he 
appeared  on  the  scene,  and  by  that  time  the  whole  of  his 
army  was  in  flight  and  he  had  no  choice  but  to  join  in 
the  general  stampede. 

It  is  difficult  to  find  any  excuses  for  Ormonde's  igno- 
minious defeat  at  Rathmines.  His  army  was  splendidly 
provided  with  officers  and  with  war  material,  and  was 
greatly  superior  in  numbers  to  that  of  Jones.  Carte,  as  in 
duty  bound,  tries  to  find  an  excuse  for  the  Marquis's  over- 
throw in  the  flight  in  the  first  instance  of  Major  Geohegan's 
horse,  "  who  were  seized  with  panic-terror  and  quitted 
the  field  upon  Sir  William  Vaughan' s  being  killed  in  the 
first  charge,  so  early  that  very  few  of  them  were  lost,  and 
could  never  afterwards  be  brought  to  rally  notwithstanding 
all  the  Marquis  of  Ormonde's  endeavours."  4 

Jones's  victory  at  Rathmines  was  as  absolute  though 
not  as  sanguinary  as  his  previous  victory  against  Preston 
at  Dungan  Hill.  Four  thousand  of  Ormonde's  men  were 

1  Richard  Bellings's  Confed.  and  War,  vol.  vii.  p.  129. 

*  Whitelocke,  Memorials,  p.  419. 

3  Carte.  4  Carte's  Life  of  Ormonde,  vol.  ii.  p.  81. 


1649]  BATTLE  OF  RATHMINES  365 

killed  and  2,500  taken  prisoners.  Among  the  latter  were 
the  Earl  of  Fingall,  two  Colonels,  six  Lieutenant-Colonels, 
eight  Majors,  forty-one  Captains,  fifty-eight  Lieutenants 
and  forty-two  Ensigns.  All  Ormonde's  artillery  and 
immense  quantities  of  stores,  baggage  and  ammunition 
fell  into  the  hands  of  the  victors,  and  such  an  abundance 
of  wine  that  the  common  soldiers  drank  it  out  of  their 
hats.1 

The  destruction  of  Ormonde's  army,  overwhelming  as 
it  was,  did  not  necessarily  mean  the  end  of  all  his  hopes  of 
successfully  resisting  the  ever-growing  power  of  the  Inde- 
pendents. It  had  from  the  first  been  part  of  his  system 
to  keep  his  Irish  troops  in  the  open  field  and  his  English 
troops  in  garrison,2  and  the  bulk  of  the  latter  were  still 
intact  and  available  for  service  in  the  field  provided  he 
elected  to  concentrate  them.  This,  however,  would 
have  necessitated  the  abandonment  of  his  garrisons, 
which  he  was  not  yet  prepared  to  sacrifice,  and  he  preferred 
in  the  circumstances  to  attempt  the  raising  of  another 
Irish  army.  With  this  end  in  view  he  remained  at  Kil- 
kenny, where,  by  superhuman  efforts,  he  succeeded  in 
getting  together  a  new  Irish  army  of  9,000  men  with  which 
to  assist  in  the  defence  of  his  garrisons.  That  such  assist- 
ance would  be  called  for  at  an  early  date  was  now  a  matter 
of  certainty,  for  the  relief  of  Derry  meant  that  the  formid- 
able Coote  was  now  free  to  co-operate  with  Jones  from 
the  north.  A  more  formidable  figure,  however,  than 
either  Jones  or  Coote  was  about  to  obtrude  itself  upon 
the  scene.  On  August  15  Oliver  Cromwell  landed  in 
Dublin  in  the  capacity  of  Parliamentary  Lord-Lieutenant, 
with  8,000  foot,  4,000  horse  and  £200,000  in  money.3 
Jones's  victory  at  Rathmines  a  fortnight  earlier  had  very 
greatly  simplified  the  task  before  the  new  Lord-Lieutenant. 
After  a  fortnight  spent  in  organising  and  drilling  his 
force,  Cromwell  set  out  for  Drogheda,  before  the  walls  of 
which  he  arrived  on  September  3  with  the  bulk  of  his 
army,  supported  by  the  artillery  captured  from  Ormonde 
at  Rathmines.* 

Drogheda  was  garrisoned  by  2,300  of  Ormonde's  best 
English  troops,  of  whom  a  considerable  proportion  was 
formed  of  the  original  parliamentary  garrison  which  had 

1  Whitelocke,  Memorials,  p.  419.  3  Carte,  vol.  ii.  p.  83. 

•  Ibid.,  p.  417.  «  Aphorismical  Disc. 


866    THE  RISE  AND   FALL  OF  ORMONDE    [CHAP,  xn 

gone  over  in  a  body  to  Inchiquin  on  his  appearance  before 
the  walls  three  months  earlier.     These  troops  were  under 
the  command  of  Sir  Arthur  Aston  of  Fulham,  Middlesex, 
a  distinguished  officer  who  had  fought  for    Charles  I  at 
Edgehill.     Sir  Robert  Byrons,  Sir  Edmund  Verney  and 
Sir  Thomas  Armstrong  were  among  the  subordinate  officers. 
For  a  week  Cromwell  made  no  movement  against  the  town, 
being  content  with  perfecting  his  arrangements  for  its 
capture    in    case    of   resistance.     During    this    week    Sir 
Thomas  Armstrong,  at  the  head  of  his  horse,  attempted 
one  sally  from  the  town,  but  he  was  worsted  and  had  to 
retreat.     Some  of  Ormonde's  new  Irish  army  hovered  in 
the  background  but  made  no  serious  attempt  to  co-operate 
with  the  beleaguered  garrison.     On  September  9  Cromwell 
started  battering  the  walls,  and  by  the  following  day  he 
had  made  a  practicable  breach  close  to  St.  Mary's  Church  on 
the  south  side  of  the  river,  where  the  smaller  portion 
of  the  town  was  situated.     He  thereupon  sent  the  following 
letter  to  Sir  Arthur  Aston  :    "  Sir,  having  brought    the 
army   belonging   to   the   Parliament   of   England    before 
this  place  to  reduce  it  to  obedience,  to  the  end  that  effusion 
of  blood  may  be  prevented  I  thought  fit  to  summon  you 
to  surrender  the  same  into  my  hands.     If  this  be  refused 
you  will  have  no  cause  to  blame  me."  l     This  summons 
produced  no  result,  and  Cromwell  immediately  ordered  the 
breach  to  be  stormed.     The  first  attempt  failed.     Colonel 
Castle,   who   led  the  storming  party,  was  killed  at   the 
head  of  his  regiment,  and  his  men  driven  back.     Colonel 
Ewer's    regiment    was    then    ordered    up    and    made    a 
fresh    attack,    which    was    encouraged  by   the    presence 
in  person  of  Cromwell  and  Ireton.     This  second  attempt 
proved  successful,  and  a  footing  was  established  within 
the  walls  before  which  the  garrison  at  first  gave  way  and 
finally  fled.     A  terrible  slaughter  followed.     Cromwell  gave 
orders   that  no   one  in  arms — no  matter  what  his  rank 
— was  to  be  spared.     Numbers  were  killed  as  they  crowded 
across  the  bridge  towards  the  north  side.     Many  of  the 
principal  officers,  including  Sir  Arthur  Aston,  Sir  Edmund 
Verney,  Colonel  Warren  and  Colonel  Byrne  took  refuge 
on  the  Millmount,  where  they  were  all  killed,  according  to 
Ormonde,  an  hour  after  they  had  surrendered.*    Aston  was 

1  Gilbert's  Contemp,  Hist. 

2  Ormonde  to  Byrons,  September  29, 1649. 


1649]  THE   SACK   OF  DROGHEDA  367 

run  through  the  body  with  a  sword  and  then  brained  with  his 
own  wooden  leg.  Others  took  refuge  in  St.  Peter's  Church, 
where  we  are  told  that  1,000  were  killed.  The  most 
fortunate  were  those  who  took  refuge  in  the  tower  of  the 
church,  where  they  held  out  for  some  days  till  hunger 
forced  them  to  surrender.  Of  these  only  the  officers 
and  every  tenth  man  were  killed,  the  rest,  to  the  number 
of  thirty  or  so,  being  shipped  to  Barbados.  For 
four  days  the  carnage  continued.  It  was  said  that 
Cromwell's  officers  expostulated  against  his  blood- 
thirsty orders,  but  he  was  obdurate.  His  own  estimate 
placed  the  number  of  killed  at  2,000, :  but  others 
added  another  1,000  to  this  figure.  It  is  certain  that, 
with  the  exception  of  thirty  of  those  who  took  refuge 
in  St.  Peter's  Church,  none  of  the  garrison  were  spared.8 
We  know  from  many  sources  that  the  garrison  numbered 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  2,300,  so  that,  with  the  addition 
of  those  of  the  inhabitants  who  perished,  it  is  probable 
that  the  total  number  of  victims  was  not  far  short  of 
3,000. 

This  dreadful  massacre  is  invariably  cited  as  an  example 
of  Cromwell's  brutality  to  the  Irish ;  but,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  vast  majority  of  the  victims  were  English.  Prac- 
tically all  the  officers  and  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the 
garrison  were  English.  As  to  this  point  there  is  absolutely 
no  room  for  doubt.  In  the  parliamentary  version  of 
the  affair,  Ludlow's  Account  of  the  taking  of  Drogheda,  we 
read,  "  The  enemy  placed  three  or  four  thousand  of  the 
best  of  their  men — being  mostly  English — in  the  town 
of  Drogheda  and  made  Sir  Arthur  Aston  Governor  thereof.' ' 
The  royalist  version  is  equally  positive  :  "In  this  town 
[Drogheda]  the  Lord-Lieutenant  had  put  the  flower  of 
his  veteran  soldiers,  mostly  English,  under  the  command 
of  Sir  Arthur  Aston."  3  Many  of  the  Irish  inhabitants, 
however,  and  several  priests  were  undoubtedly  killed  in 
the  general  massacre. 

Cromwell's  object  in  ordering  the  massacre  of  all  those 
found  in  arms  within  the  walls  of  Drogheda  would  appear 
to  have  been  twofold.  In  the  first  place,  he  wished  to 
strike  terror  into  the  hearts  of  the  other  garrisons  which 

1  Cromwell  to  the  Speaker,  September  17,  1649. 

2  Cromwell  to  John  Bradshaw,  September  16,  1649. 

3  Bates's  Account  of  Drogheda  Siege. 

25 


368    THE  RISE  AND  FALL  OF  ORMONDE    [CHAP,  xii 

were  still  held  for  Ormonde,  so  that  an  immediate  surrender 
should,  in  the  future,  follow  on  his  summons.  He  himself 
in  many  of  his  letters  to  England  made  a  great  point  of 
this  form  of  justification,  and  argued  that  the  two  dreadful 
examples  of  Drogheda  and  Wexford  saved,  in  the  long 
run,  an  immense  amount  of  bloodshed  which  would 
otherwise  have  been  unavoidable.  It  seems  tolerably 
clear,  however,  that  there  was  a  secondary  motive  at  the 
back  of  his  mind.  Most  of  the  officers  and  men  of  the 
garrison  were  apostates  from  the  parliamentary  cause, 
and,  as  such,  objects  of  peculiar  detestation  to  Cromwell 
and  his  colleagues  in  England.  In  September  1649, 
about  the  same  time  as  the  sack  of  Drogheda,  the  House 
of  Commons  resolved  that  "  All  English  and  Scottish  that 
have  acknowledged  for  the  Parliament  of  England,  and 
have  revolted  from  that  service,  are  traitors,  and  shall 
have  their  estates  confiscated  and  their  persons  proceeded 
against  by  martial  law."1  Most  of  the  officers  and  men 
of  the  Drogheda  garrison  very  clearly  came  within  this 
category  of  condemnation.  In  Cromwell's  eyes  they  were 
all  "  traitors,"  and,  in  the  most  literal  sense,  their  persons 
were  proceeded  against  by  martial  law. 

In  spite  of  his  brutal  display  at  Drogheda,  it  was  Crom- 
well's endeavour,  from  the  very  first,  to  make  it  clear  to 
the  world  that  he  was  not  at  war  with  the  people  of  an 
invaded  country,  but  only  with  the  armed  forces  which 
refused  submission  to  the  power  which  was  still  by  courtesy 
called  the  Parliament,  but  which  was  in  reality  the  per- 
sonality of  Cromwell.  Almost  immediately  after  Drogheda, 
he  issued  a  proclamation  forbidding  any  soldier,  on  pain 
of  death,  to  hurt  any  of  the  inhabitants  or  take  anything 
from  them,  except  on  payment  of  ready  money.*  Whether 
this  salutary  measure  was  wholly  due  to  Cromwell's  sense 
of  justice,  or  whether  there  were  deeper  designs  be- 
hind it,  is  a  matter  of  doubt ;  but,  in  any  case,  the  result 
was  that  the  reassured  natives  brought  all  kinds  of  pro- 
visions into  the  army  camps,  and  that  Cromwell's  soldiers 
were,  therefore,  well  fed  where  previous  armies  had 
starved.  Little  less  successful  too,  in  their  way,  were  the 
two  bloody  examples  which  Cromwell  had  made  of  Drogheda 
and  Wexford.  The  latter  affair  which,  according  to 
Cromwell's  letters  home,  was  mainly  the  result  of  a  mis- 

1  Whitelocke  Memorials,  p.  422.  *  Carte,  vol.  ii.  p.  90. 


1649]  CROMWELL'S  METHODS  369 

understanding,1  was  only  a  few  degrees  less  sanguinary 
than  that  of  Drogheda.  After  the  sack  of  these  two 
places  there  was  no  need  to  repeat  the  lesson,  if  truly  a 
lesson  was  intended.  Cromwell's  invariable  clemency 
and  justice  in  cases  of  surrender,  coupled  with  his  savage 
brutality  where  assault  had  to  be  resorted  to,  quickly 
opened  the  gates  of  one  town  after  another  to  his  victorious 
army.  It  is  quite  possible  that — as  Cromwell  claimed — 
less  loss  of  life  resulted  in  the  aggregate  from  his  drastic 
methods  at  Drogheda  and  Wexford  than  would  have 
been  the  case  had  he  adopted  the  slower  processes  usually 
resorted  to  in  Irish  wars. 

1  Cromwell  to  Speaker  Lenthall,  October  1649. 


CHAPTER    XIII 

THE   END   OF   THE   IRISH   WARS 

IMMEDIATELY  after  the  sack  of  Drogheda,  and  while 
Cromwell  was  still  working  his  way  south,  Colonel  Venables 
was  sent  north  with  his  own  regiment,  Colonel  Chidley 
Coote's  regiment,  and  the  late  Colonel  Castle's  regiment, 
the  latter  under  the  command  of  Sir  Theophilus  Jones, 
once  the  staunchest  of  Royalists  but  now  converted  to 
the  views  of  his  brother  Michael. 

Dundalk  was  found  deserted  and  was  left  in  charge  of 
Major  Ponsonby  and  a  small  garrison.  Two  days  later 
Carlingford  was  taken,  and  on  the  following  day  Newry 
surrendered,  in  each  case  without  opposition  or  bloodshed. 
While  Venables  was  at  Newry,  emissaries  from  Lisburn 
came  to  him  with  an  undertaking  that  the  town  would  be 
surrendered  on  his  arrival.  He  accordingly  left  an  Ensign 
with  a  few  men  in  Newry  Castle  and  marched  north  to 
Dromore,  where  he  encamped.  During  the  night  the 
camp  was  attacked  by  Colonel  Mark  Trevor,  and  Venables' s 
force,  taken  completely  by  surprise,  was  scattered  in  all 
directions.  The  remarkable  discipline  of  the  parlia- 
mentary troops,  however,  saved  the  situation.  Venables 
and  his  officers,  by  means  of  great  exertions,  succeeded 
in  rallying  their  scattered  men,  and,  as  soon  as  day  broke, 
counter-attacked  with  such  vigour  as  to  dispossess  Trevor 
of  all  the  advantage  he  had  gained.  Major  Villiers  and 
Captain  Usher,  who  had  been  taken  prisoners,  were  rescued, 
and  two  lost  standards  were  recovered.1  On  the  following 
day,  September  27,  Venables  advanced  to  Lisburn,  where 
he  was  joined  by  Major  Brough  with  a  troop  of  local 
horse  formerly  belonging  to  Lord  Con  way's  regiment. 
Four  days  later  Belfast  surrendered,  and  the  garrison  of 
800  men,  the  greater  part  of  whom  belonged  to  Lord 

1  A  Relation  of  Several  Services,  by  Major  Meredith ;  Carte,  vol.  ii.  p.  89. 
370 


1649]  DEATH   OF   OWEN   ROE  371 

Montgomery's  regiment,  on  refusing  to  join  Venables's 
force,  were  disarmed  and  turned  out  of  the  town  with 
their  wives  and  families.1  The  energies  of  the  Cromwellian 
leaders  were  then  directed  to  the  capture  of  Carrickfergus, 
which  threatened  to  offer  a  protracted  resistance. 

All   this   time   Owen  Roe  had  remained  at  Ballykelly, 
waiting  to  be  paid  the  stipulated  sum  which  had  been 
agreed  between  himself  and  Coote  for  the  services  of  his 
army.     The  agreement  which  he  had  signed  with  Monck 
had  terminated  on  August  8,  and  from  that  day  on  he 
was  free  to  market  his  services  where  he  would.     In  full 
knowledge  of  this  fact,  Ormonde  had  been  in  constant 
communication  with  Owen  Roe  during  the  whole  period 
of  his  stay  at  Ballykelly,  at  times  by  means   of  Daniel 
O'Neil,  Owen  Roe's  nephew,  and  at  others  through  John 
Leslie,  Bishop  of  Raphoe.     It  would  appear  that  some 
definite  understanding  had  been  actually  arrived  at  as 
the  result  of  these  negotiations,8  but  it  was  not  productive 
of  any  immediate  results.     Owen  Roe  made  no  secret  of 
his  willingness  to  serve  against  his  recent  allies,  but  he 
explained  his  inability  to  do  so,  or,  indeed,  to  move  from 
where  he  was,  until  he  had  been  paid  the  price  agreed  with 
Coote.3     It  may  have  been  the  knowledge  of  the  negotia- 
tions   passing   between    Ormonde    and    Owen    Roe    that 
influenced  Coote  to  defer  for  a  time  the  settlement  of  his 
debts,  or  it  may  have  been  that  he  actually  was  without 
the  means  to  pay  till  headquarters  supplied  him  with  the 
necessary  funds.     In  either  case  the  final  payment  was 
not  made  till  near  the  middle   of  September,   and,   on 
the  20th  of  that  month,  Owen  Roe  started  south  for  Cavan, 
with  the  object  of  putting  himself  in  closer  touch  with 
Ormonde.     He  was  very  ill  from  an  inflamed  knee-joint, 
which  caused  him  great  pain.     Popular  rumour  attributed 
his  illness  to  a  pair  of  poisoned  riding-boots  which  had 
been  sent  him,  while  he  was  in  Derry,  by  Colonel  Plunket, 
one  of  his  Leinster  enemies.     There  is  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  this  rumour  had  any  foundation  in  fact.     The  Ulster 
leader  had  been  in  bad  health  from  the  moment  of  his 
landing  in  Ireland  :    his  doctors  attributed  his  ailments 
to  gout,  and    the  symptoms  as  described  rather  favour 

1  A  Brief  Chronicle  of  the  Chief  Matters  of  the  Irish  Warres. 

2  See  Cromwell  to  Speaker  Lenthall,  October  25,  1649. 

3  Carte,  vol.  ii.  p.  83. 


372          THE   END   OF  THE   IRISH  WARS      [CHAP,  xm 

this  diagnosis.  His  journey  to  Cavan  occupied  a  long 
while,  as  he  could  only  travel  in  a  litter  by  very  short 
stages.  The  arrangement  which  he  had  arrived  at  with 
Ormonde — such  as  it  was — never  matured,  for  he  died  at 
Lough  Oughter  Castle  on  November  6. 

Much  has  already  been  said  as  to  this  remarkable  man's 
character.  He  would  appear  to  have  had  all  the  elements 
of  greatness,  combined  with  a  singularly  honourable  and 
conscientious  disposition.  With  a  little  good  fortune  he 
might  easily  have  left  for  himself  a  name  as  the  greatest 
of  all  Irish  patriots,  but  good  fortune  persistently  passed 
him  by ;  in  fact,  the  most  striking  and  noticeable  feature, 
throughout  the  latter  part  of  his  career,  is  the  invariable  ill- 
luck  that  pursued  him  in  his  dealings  with  friend  and 
foe  alike.  Apart  from  the  element  of  luck,  his  failure  and 
his  unpopularity  with  the  upper  classes  among  his  fellow- 
countrymen  was  undoubtedly  due  in  great  part  to  the 
revolutionary  nature  of  his  programme,  which  insisted 
on  a  reversal  of  all  the  Plantation  grants.  Such  aims 
were  not  only  without  attraction  of  any  sort  for  the 
Roman  Catholic  Lords  of  the  Pale,  but  actually  consti- 
tuted a  menace  to  their  own  well-being,  for  they  were  all 
aliens  by  ancestry,  and  usurpers  of  Irish  lands.  Their 
establishment  in  the  country  dated  a  century  or  two 
further  back  than  that  of  the  Ulster  British;  many  of 
them  had  become  semi-Irish  by  marriage  and  wholly  Irish 
in  religion,  but,  none  the  less,  in  the  eyes  of  the  natives 
they  were  aliens  and  usurpers,  and  a  successful  reversal 
of  the  Ulster  Plantation  grants  would  almost  certainly 
have  been  followed  by  a  reversal  of  the  more  remote 
Leinster  grants.  It  was  this  common  interest  which 
bound  together  the  Protestant  Ormonde  and  the  Con- 
federate Catholics,  and  which  fanned  their  mutual  fear 
and  distrust  of  Owen  Roe.  Before  the  combination  Owen 
Roe  inevitably  went  down.  The  supplies  of  money  and 
war  material  from  abroad  went  direct  into  the  hands  of 
the  Supreme  Council  at  Kilkenny,  and,  though  this 
body  was  willing  to  apply  them  to  the  purposes  of  war 
against  Puritan  fanaticism,  it  was  but  little  disposed  to 
subsidise  a  policy  of  general  upheaval  in  which  they 
themselves  might  be  overwhelmed.  Herein  lay  one  cause 
of  Owen  Roe's  failure.  Another  lay  in  his  persistent  bad 
health,  and  a  third  in  his  dour  integrity  of  purpose.  Had 


1649]  DEATH   OF   OWEN   O'CONNELLY  378 

he  inherited  even  a  fraction  of  the  duplicity  of  his  uncle, 
Hugh,  Earl  of  Tyrone,  he  might  have  disguised  his  real 
aims  till  sufficiently  strong  to  dispense  with  make-believe. 
As  it  was,  his  downright  honesty  and  hatred  of  double- 
dealing  proved  his  undoing.  He  stood  out  as  a  menace 
to  too  many  vested  interests,  and,  between  the  Ulster 
settlers  in  the  north  and  the  Confederate  Catholics  in 
the  south,  he  was  crushed. 

At  the  end  of  October  Coote,  who  had  lately  been 
reinforced  by  1,000  fresh  troops  from  England,  crossed 
the  Foyle  into  Co.  Londonderry,  where  he  was  joined 
by  Sir  Theophilus  Jones  at  the  head  of  the  late  Colonel 
Castle's  regiment.  Together  the  two  advanced  upon 
Coleraine,  of  which  Sir  George  Monro  had  now  been  in 
occupation  for  nearly  three  months.  Unlike  the  com- 
manders of  Newry,  Carlingford  and  Lisburn,  Sir  George 
Monro  made  no  formal  surrender,  but  evacuated  the 
town  upon  Coote' s  approach  and  made  east  with  his 
army  into  Antrim,  with  a  view  to  joining  Lord  Mont- 
gomery's regiment  which  had  recently  been  turned  out 
of  Belfast.  On  his  way  he  sent  a  detachment  under 
Colonel  John  Hamilton  to  attack  the  town  of  Antrim, 
of  which  Colonel  Owen  O' Connelly  had  just  been  placed 
in  command,  Sir  John  Clotworthy,  the  original  commander, 
being  away  in  England  serving  on  Parliamentary  Com- 
mittees. O' Connelly  had  just  been  to  Belfast,  where  he 
had  obtained  two  troops  of  horse  from  Venables,  with 
which  he  was  in  the  act  of  returning  to  Antrim  when 
Hamilton  attacked  him  and  completely  routed  his  newly 
acquired  force.  Captain  Reaper  was  killed  and  O' Connelly 
himself  was  taken  prisoner.  The  latter,  while  being 
carried  off  by  Hamilton,  thought  he  saw  an  opportunity 
of  effecting  his  escape  and  made  a  dash  for  liberty.  He 
was  pursued  and  killed  before  he  could  get  clear  of  his 
enemies.1  The  defeat  of  O' Connelly  gave  Sir  George 
Monro  possession  of  Antrim  for  the  second  time  within 
four  months,  and — as  on  the  occasion  of  his  previous 
expedition  in  July — he  followed  up  the  capture  of  Antrim 
by  seizing  Lisburn.*  Being  debarred  by  Ormonde's 

1  Warr  of  Ireland. 

2  We  have  no  exact  information  as  to  the  fate  of  Col.  Conway's  regiment 
of  700  mounted  men.     The  regiment  was  evidently  not  in  Lisburn  at  the 
date  of  Venables's  advance,  for  we  know  that  he  was  met  by  Lieut.  Brough 
and  one  small  troop  only.    The  strong  probability  is  that,  upon  Venables's 


874         THE   END   OF  THE   IRISH  WARS       [CHAP,  xin 

orders  from  occupying  either  place  with  his  present  troops, 
he  burned  both. 

Coote,  having  made  his  dispositions  for  the  safe  garri- 
soning of  Coleraine,  followed  on  in  the  wake  of  Sir  George 
Monro,  but  not  sufficiently  fast  to  prevent  his  junction 
with  Montgomery.  Coote  then  went  on  to  Carrickfergus, 
which  Venables  was  besieging.  This  place  held  out  for 
a  month,  but  on  November  2  Colonel  Dalziel  signed 
articles  of  surrender,  the  formal  transfer  being  fixed  for 
December  13.  This  released  the  two  Cromwellian  leaders, 
who  at  once  marched  towards  Lough  Neagh  to  try  con- 
clusions with  Montgomery  and  Sir  George  Monro,  who 
were  reported  to  be  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Lisburn 
with  2,800  men.  On  December  6  Coote  sent  forward  a 
small  party  of  200  horse  under  Major  Gore  of  the  Lagan 
Force  and  Captain  Dunbar  to  reconnoitre.  This  party 
found  Montgomery  in  full  retreat  and — thinking  the 
opportunity  a  fitting  one — attacked  the  rear  of  the  column. 
The  success  of  this  unexpected  attack  was  almost  beyond 
belief.1  The  entire  army  fled  without  once  facing  about. 
Colonel  Henderson,  Colonel  Saunderson,8  Philip  McMulmore 
O'Reilly  and  1,000  men  were  killed,  while  the  total  loss 
to  Coote' s  detachment  was  only  one  corporal  and  two 
privates.  Colonel  Hamilton  and  Lord  Clandeboye,  a 
very  fat  young  man  who  had  succeeded  his  father  in  1644, 
were  taken  prisoners.  Montgomery  fled  south  and  joined 
Ormonde.  Sir  George  Monro  escaped  by  swimming  the 
Blackwater.  He  stayed  for  a  time  in  Charlemont  and 
then  went  to  Enniskillen,  where  he  superseded  Colonel 
Acheson  in  the  command  by  virtue  of  his  commission  from 
the  King.5 

The  death  of  Owen  Roe  had  left  the  Irish  Ulster  army 
without  a  leader,  and  on  March  18,  1650,  a  meeting  was 

approach,  the  regiment  had  disbanded.  It  was  composed  entirely  of 
territorials,  and,  in  face  of  the  difficulty  of  knowing  which  side  to  support, 
it  is  probable  that  they  decided  to  leave  the  government  of  the  country  in 
the  hands  of  the  Cromwellians  and  disbanded. 

1  The  extraordinary  rout  of  Montgomery's  men  on  this  occasion  is  pos- 
sibly to  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  they  had  no  arms.  We  know  that 
800  of  his  men  had  been  disarmed  before  being  turned  out  of  Belfast  shortly 
before,  and  it  would  seem  as  though  Montgomery  was  not  out  to  fight, 
but  was  working  his  way  south  with  a  view  of  getting  arms  from  Ormonde 
when  Coote's  men  overtook  him.  If  this  is  a  correct  supposition,  Sir  George 
Monro's  men  would  be  the  only  portion  of  the  force  that  were  armed. 

*  Not  to  be  confused  with  the  Lagan  Force  leader. 

»  William  Basil  to  Speaker  Lenthall,  December  12,  1649. 


1650]   EMER   McMAHON   SUCCEEDS   OWEN   ROE     375 

held  at  Belturbet  with  McSweeney,  Bishop  of  Kilmore, 
in  the  chair  to  elect  a  successor.  The  most  prominent 
candidates  were  the  Earl  of  Antrim,  Sir  Phelim  O'Neil, 
Daniel  O'Neil,  Henry  Roe  O'Neil,  General  Fennell,  and 
Emer  McMahon,  Bishop  of  Clogher.  After  a  keen  com- 
petition the  last-named  was  elected,  to  the  pronounced 
disgust  of  Antrim,  who  from  that  time  on  threw  in  his 
lot  with  the  Cromwellians.  The  election  of  McMahon 
had  the  effect  of  driving  more  important  recruits  into 
the  Cromwellians'  camp  than  the  Earl  of  Antrim,  whom 
Carte  describes  as  "  very  vain  and  very  incompetent ;  a 
great  boaster  and  a  small  performer."  McMahon  was  a 
Bishop,  even  though  a  titular  one,  and  the  Presbyterian 
element  among  such  members  of  the  Lagan  Force  as  had 
so  far  remained  Royalist  was  at  once  galvanised  into 
active  hostility.  It  appeared  painfully  clear  to  these  that 
any  party  or  army  with  a  Bishop  as  its  acknowledged 
head  could  be  nothing  but  an  instrument  for  the  revival 
of  episcopacy.  The  first  outburst  of  loyalty  which  had 
followed  on  the  succession  of  the  young  King  had  not 
long  survived  his  sustained  refusal  to  take  the  Covenant. 
A  year  had  now  passed  since  the  Presbyterian  envoys 
had  journeyed  to  the  Hague,  and  the  one  condition  on 
which  they  had  promised  the  support  of  their  country- 
men was  still  unfulfilled.  The  strain  on  the  loyalty  of 
the  Presbyterians  was  too  great.  The  young  King  had 
failed  to  furnish  the  one  pretext  which  would  have  justi- 
fied them  in  espousing  the  royalist  cause.  On  the  other 
hand,  a  native  Irish  army  was  in  the  field,  with  a  Roman 
Catholic  Bishop  at  its  head.  Here  was  a  natural  and 
clearly  defined  enemy  which,  if  it  achieved  the  supremacy 
of  Ulster,  might  yet  be  responsible  for  a  repetition  of 
the  1641  experiences.  In  such  a  simple  situation,  the 
duty  of  the  Lagan  Force  seemed  clear.  Such  as  did  not 
return  to  their  homes  in  indecision,  joined  the  Cromwellians.1 
By  the  spring  of  1650  Venables,  who  had  now  been 
appointed  Governor  of  Ulster,  had  won  over,  either  by 
force  of  arms  or  by  persuasion,  all  his  former  opponents 
with  the  exception  of  the  native  Irish.  On  April  14  Sir 
George  Monro  surrendered  Enniskillen  to  Coote — according 
to  some  accounts  in  consideration  of  a  payment  of  £500 — 
and  returned  to  Scotland,  and  shortly  afterwards  Bally- 

»   Warr  of  Ireland,  p.  117. 


376         THE   END   OF  THE   IRISH  WARS       [CHAP,  xm 

shannon  was  surrendered  to  Captain  Hewson.  Charle- 
mont  and  Lough  Oughter  Castles,  both  occupied  by  the 
Irish,  were  now  the  only  two  strongholds  in  Ulster  not 
in  the  hands  of  the  Cromwellians,  and  in  April  Coote 
wrote  to  Venables  suggesting  that  they  should  join  forces 
and  besiege  the  first-named  place,  which  had  now  defied 
capture  for  nine  years.  In  order  to  prevent,  or  at  all 
events  to  hinder,  such  a  conjunction,  Emer  McMahon 
made  his  first  move  as  Commander-in-Chief  by  swooping 
down  on  the  Co.  Londonderry  garrisons  with  an  army 
of  5,000  men.1  Dungiven  Castle,  which  refused  to  sur- 
render, was  carried  by  assault  and  the  garrison  of  twenty 
put  to  the  sword.  Colonel  Mark  Beresford,  who  was  in 
command,  was  sent  as  a  prisoner  to  Charlemont,  and  his 
wife  and  Lady  Coote,  who  were  also  inside  the  walls,  were 
safely  escorted  by  McMahon  to  Limavadyand  handed  over  to 
the  care  of  Captain  Phillips.8  Ballykelly,  influenced  by  the 
fate  of  the  Dungiven  garrison,  surrendered  without  opposi- 
tion, but  Captain  Phillips  refused  to  give  up  Limavady,  and 
this  place  successfully  resisted  all  attempts  at  capture.3 
McMahon' s  most  important  capture  was  Castle  Toome,  at 
the  outlet  of  the  Bann  from  Lough  Neagh.  The  strategic 
importance  of  this  place  was  very  great,  as  it  commanded 
the  only  practicable  passage  from  east  to  west  Ulster 
north  of  Lough  Neagh,  and  its  occupation  by  McMahon 
was  a  serious  hindrance  to  Venables' s  plans.  The  Bishop 
left  Shane  O'Hagan  with  1,200  men  inside  the  walls, 
and,  with  the  rest  of  his  army,  moved  west  to  the  banks 
of  the  river  Mourne,  where  Lifford  was  either  evacuated 
on  his  approach  or  handed  over  to  him  by  Major  Perkins, 
the  former  constable  of  Dungannon  Castle. 

So  far  McMahon  had  displayed  admirable  generalship. 
He  had  effectually  prevented  the  threatened  conjunction 
of  Coote  and  Venables,  and  by  so  doing  had  appreciably 
delayed  the  siege  of  Charlemont  at  which  they  were  aiming. 
His  next  object  was  to  overwhelm  Coote  before  Venables 
could  reinforce  him.  The  latter,  who  was  in  Dublin  at 
the  time,  knew  of  Coote' s  weakness,  and  of  his  danger  from 
McMahon' s  powerful  army,  and  he  promised  to  send  him 
1,000  men  round  by  sea  with  as  little  delay  as  possible. 
The  bulk  of  his  own  forces  in  Ulster  were  still  fully  occupied 

1  Whitelocke  Memorials,  p.  459.  »   Warr  of  Ireland, 

3  Coote  to  Ireton,  July  2,  1650. 


1650]  McMAHON'S   INACTION  377 

in  the  recapture  of  the  forts  which  McMahon  had  seized. 
Castle  Toome,  the  strongest  of  these,  held  out  for  eight 
days,  but  on  the  ninth  day  Shane  O'Hagan  surrendered, 
and  he  and  all  his  1,200  men  were  allowed  to  march  out.1 
Coote,  at  the  time  of  McMahon' s  advance  upon  Lifford, 
had  only  800  foot  and  600  horse  to  rely  upon.  Of  this 
force,  half  were  English  and  half  belonged  to  the  old 
Lagan  Force,  now  reduced  to  two  regiments  under  the 
command  of  Colonel  Saunderson  and  Colonel  Gore.  Colonel 
Hunk's  English  regiment  was  used  for  garrison  purposes 
in  Enniskillen  and  Deny.  McMahon' s  original  army  had 
been  reduced  to  under  4,000  men  by  the  necessity  for 
finding  garrisons  in  Co.  Londonderry,  but — even  so — it 
was  nearly  three  times  the  strength  of  the  force  at  Coote' s 
disposal.  The  Bishop,  who  was  a  man  of  tireless  energy, 
as  well  as  a  capable  commander,  was  quick  to  realise 
that  the  opportunity  which  presented  itself  for  crushing 
Coote' s  little  force  was  unique  and  on  no  account  to  be 
missed.  There  could  be  no  doubt  that  McMahon' s  summing 
up  of  the  situation  was  a  thoroughly  sound  one,  but 
unfortunately  it  did  not  harmonise  with  the  views  of 
his  subordinate  officers,  who  were  one  and  all  opposed 
to  the  policy  of  immediate  attack.  Conspicuous  among 
these  was  Owen  Roe's  son,  Henry  Roe,  whose  opposition 
to  offensive  measures  was  so  sustained  that,  in  the  end, 
McMahon  openly  accused  him  of  cowardice.  The  effect 
of  this  hesitating  attitude  on  the  part  of  his  officers  was 
that  the  Bishop  missed  a  golden  opportunity.  Instead  of 
attacking  Coote  in  force  before  reinforcements  could 
arrive,  he  contented  himself  with  an  uneventful  skirmish 
in  which  Coote  lost  Captain  Cathcart  and  Captain  Taylor 
(the  last-named  of  whom,  we  are  told,  was  killed  while 
fighting  very  valiantly)  and  from  which  McMahon  emerged 
with  a  decided  advantage,  but  which  produced  no  definite 
or  lasting  results.  Instead  of  pursuing  this  initial  ad- 
vantage, McMahon  was  once  more  held  back  by  the  over 
caution  of  his  officers,  who  finally  persuaded  him  not 
only  to  refrain  from  attack  but  to  withdraw  his  army  to 
Letterkenny,  ten  miles  distant  from  the  scene  of  the  late 
skirmish.  By  this  policy  the  value  of  the  Bishop's  late 
success  was  not  only  discounted  but  was  practically 
credited  to  the  other  side,  for  it  gave  Coote' s  expected 

1  Warr  of  Ireland. 


378  THE  END   OF  THE   IRISH   WARS    [CHAP,  xin 

reinforcements  time  to  arrive.     So  long  as  he  had  only 
his  own  small  force  to  rely  on,  the  Deny  Governor  had 
very  grave  doubts  as  to  his  ability  successfully  to  oppose 
McMahon's  advance.     All  the  British  inhabitants  of  east 
Donegal   and   north  Tyrone   were  told   to   withdraw  to 
Inishowen,  in  the  neck  of  which  it  was  Coote's  intention 
to   make   his   final   stand.1     The  necessity   for   this   last 
expedient — as  events  turned  out — was  never  forced  upon 
him,  for,  while  the  Bishop's  army  was  contenting  itself 
with  shaking  a  threatening  fist  from  a  distance  of  ten 
miles,  Coote's  reinforcements  arrived.     On  June  18  the 
thousand  men  whom  Venables  had  promised  sailed  up 
the  Foyle  under  Colonel  Fenwick  and  joined   Coote  at 
Lifford.     This  welcome  addition  to  his  force  at  once  put 
Coote  in  a  position  to  abandon  the  defensive  and  to  attack 
the  Bishop  on  his  own  ground.     On  the  20th  he  marched 
to  Letterkenny,  and  on  the  21st  he  launched  his  attack. 
McMahon,  whose  army  was  drawn  up  in  a  well-selected 
position    at    Scarriffhollis,    once    more    had    the    greatest 
difficulty  in  prevailing  upon  his  officers  to  accept  battle. 
The  result,  when  they  did  so,  was  very  far  from  satis- 
factory.    The  Lagan  Force  under  Colonel  Saunderson  and 
the  English  troops  under  Colonel  Fenwick  attacked  with 
a  determination  before  which  the  resistance  of  McMahon's 
men  quickly  broke  down,   and  the  whole  army  turned 
and  fled.     One  thousand  five  hundred  were  reported  to 
have  been  killed  in  the  pursuit  which  followed,  including 
the  Bishop  of  Down,  Lord  Maguire  (the  son  of  Connor), 
Shane  O'Neil  and  Hugh  Maguire.     All  the  ammunition, 
baggage  and  colours  and  most  of  the  horses  were  captured. 
Henry  Roe,  Phelim  McToole  and  Shane  O'Hagan  were 
taken    prisoners.     Sir   Phelim   fled   to    Charlemont,    and 
the  Bishop  with  the  remnant  of  his  army  rode  south 
towards  Fermanagh.     Beyond  the  limits  of  this  county 
he  was  not  destined  to  pass,  for  one  of  his  men  named 
Brian  Maguire  gave  information  to  the  Enniskillen  garrison 
that  the  Irish  Commander-in-Chief  was  in  the  neighbour- 
hood, and  Major  King  rode  out  with  a  squadron  of  horse 
and  effected  his  capture. 

Coote's  losses  in  the  battle  were  very  small :  Captain 
Sloper  was  killed  and  Colonel  Fenwick  received  wounds 
from  which  he  subsequently  died.8  Colonel  Gore  was 

1  Coote  to  Ireton,  July  2, 1 650.      2  Confederation  and  War,  vol.  iii.  p.  666. 


1650]  BATTLE  OF  SCARRIFFHOLLIS  379 

also  amongst  the  wounded.  Fenwick,  Gore,  Richard 
Coote  and  Captain  Duckingfield  were  all  reported  to  have 
greatly  distinguished  themselves  during  the  fighting.1 
Henry  Roe,  Phelim  McToole  and  Shane  O'Hagan,  the 
three  most  prominent  Irish  prisoners  taken,  were  subse- 
quently executed — some  say  at  Derry  and  others  on  the 
battle-field.  The  latter  version  seems  to  be  the  correct 
one.  Colonel  Henry  O'Neil,  in  his  Relation,  quotes  from 
an  eye-witness,  according  to  whom  the  three  prisoners 
were  brutally  murdered  by  Coote' s  orders  after  having 
surrendered  upon  promise  of  quarter.  This  accusation — 
as  already  stated — was  invariably  made  throughout  this 
war  in  every  case  where  prisoners  of  importance  were 
killed  or  executed  after  capture.  Ormonde  made  the 
accusation  in  the  case  of  Sir  Arthur  Aston  and  the  other 
English  officers  killed  at  Drogheda.  The  same  accusation 
was  made  against  Owen  Roe  by  the  Supreme  Council  on 
the  occasion  of  the  capture  of  Castle  Desart,  where  Captain 
Piggott  and  all  the  garrison  were  killed  z ;  but  there  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  it  was  any  better  founded  in  this 
case  than  in  the  others. 

In  the  matter  of  Sir  Arthur  Aston  and  the  others  killed  at 
Drogheda,  it  seems  fairly  clear  that  Cromwell's  slaughter  of 
the  officers  was  a  carefully  considered  part  of  his  scheme  for 
striking  terror  into  the  hearts  of  the  remaining  garrisons 
in  Ireland.  In  the  case  of  capture  by  assault,  it  was  the 
invariable  custom,  among  the  Irish  no  less  than  the 
English,  to  spare  the  principal  officers  for  purposes  of 
ransom  or  future  exchange,  and  to  put  every  other  man 
to  the  sword.  It  is  obvious  that  a  custom  such  as  this 
must  have  been  an  encouragement  to  those  in  command  to 
refuse  terms  of  surrender  and  to  run  the  risk  of  assault. 
In  the  case  of  success  they  achieved  a  certain  reputation, 
and  in  the  case  of  failure  it  was  the  rank  and  file  who  were 
sacrificed.  The  fate  of  Sir  Arthur  Aston  and  the  other 
Drogheda  officers  made  it  quite  clear  to  the  remaining 
garrison  commanders  that  refusal  to  surrender  would 
involve  their  own  persons  in  the  same  risks  that  threatened 
the  common  soldiers.  Coote' s  action  after  Scarriffhollis 
was  obviously  a  continuance  of  the  policy  inaugurated 
by  Cromwell  at  Drogheda.  It  was  designed  to  show  that 

1  Coote  to  Ireton,  July  2,  1650  ;  Whitelocke  Memorials,  p.  464. 
1  Confederation  and  War,  vol.  vi.  p.  23. 


380         THE  END   OF  THE   IRISH  WARS       [CHAP,  xm 

the  old  custom  of  exempting  the  aristocracy  from  the 
perils  of  war  was  a  thing  of  the  past,  and  that  officers  of 
high  rank,  whether  English  or  Irish,  were  in  future  to  be 
dealt  with  on  the  same  lines  as  the  common  soldiers. 
According  to  Colonel  O'Neil,  Coote  reprimanded  his  men 
for  having  taken  their  prisoners  alive  and  ordered  their 
instant  execution.  Coote  was  undoubtedly  a  ruthless 
opponent.  Among  all  the  leaders  of  the  day,  he  and 
Inchiquin  stand  out  as  the  two  most  brutal,  but  it  is 
greatly  to  be  doubted  whether  he  was  the  man  to  go 
back  on  his  word,  or  to  violate  any  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  civilised  warfare.  According  to  Mulhollan 
he  lost  500  men  in  the  siege  of  Charlemont,  but  none  the 
less  he  allowed  Sir  Phelim  and  all  his  garrison  to  march 
out  as  free  men,  because  this  was  a  condition  of  the 
terms  of  surrender. 

The  Bishop  of  Clogher  was  executed  at  Enniskillen 
some  five  weeks  after  his  capture.  Major  King,  who 
had  taken  him  prisoner,  pleaded  hard  for  his  life,  but 
Coote  was  not  to  be  moved,  and  he  was  hanged. 

Emer  McMahon  appears  to  have  been  a  man  of  many 
good  qualities.  He  first  came  into  public  prominence  as 
the  man  who  warned  Radclyffe  during  Stratford's  ad- 
ministration that  a  rising  of  the  native  Irish  was  in  con- 
templation. This  happened  several  years  before  the 
actual  outbreak.  During  the  progress  of  the  rising  he 
sided  whole-heartedly  with  the  Irish,  but  he  does  not 
appear  to  have  been  personally  responsible  for  any  of 
the  early  massacres  of  the  British  settlers.  Attempts 
were  made  to  identify  him,  while  Vicar-General,  with 
some  of  the  massacres  at  Carrickmacross,  but  the  point 
is  very  far  from  being  established.  Ormonde  held  a 
high  opinion  of  his  honesty.  "  These  twenty  years," 
he  said,  "  I  have  had  to  do  with  Irish  Bishops.  I  never 
found  any  of  them  to  speak  the  truth  or  to  perform  their 
promises  to  me,  only  the  Bishop  of  Clogher  excepted."  1 
As  a  military  leader  he  seems  to  have  had  undoubted 
energy  and  very  considerable  ability.  His  tactics  after  his 
appointment  appear  to  have  been  admirable,  and,  had  he 
not  yielded  to  the  timid  counsels  of  his  officers,  he  would 
probably  have  crushed  Coote' s  little  force  before  the 
expected  reinforcements  could  have  arrived.  As  it  was  his 

1  Walsh,  p.  743. 


1650]  CAPTURE  OF  CHARLEMONT  381 

defeat  at  Scarriffhollis  was  due  less  to  faulty  generalship 
than  to  the  indifferent  display  of  his  army. 

Before  quitting  the  subject  of  the  prisoners  taken  at 
Scarriffhollis,  it  is  interesting  to  note  among  them  the 
name  of  Phelim  McToole  O'Neil.  The  interest  lies  in 
the  fact  that  Phelim  McToole  had  been  officially  killed 
nearly  two  years  earlier  by  his  friend  Henry  Roe  in  a 
drunken  brawl.  Not  only  does  Richard  Bellings  announce 
this  fact  in  a  letter  to  Ormonde  dated  November  25,  1648, 
but  Carte  actually  goes  into  details  as  to  the  number 
of  Owen  Roe's  men  who  deserted  him  on  account  of  the 
murder  of  McToole,  who  was  one  of  his  most  popular 
leaders.1  At  Scarriffhollis,  however,  the  dead  man  is 
once  more  reproduced  by  Colonel  O'Neil,  by  the  author 
of  Aphorismical  Discovery  and  even  by  Carte  himself. 
The  only  possible  explanation  is  that  the  original  report 
was  an  exaggeration.  Phelim  McToole  may  have  been 
wounded  by  Henry  Roe,  and  it  is  quite  possible  that  he 
and  his  immediate  following  may  have  deserted  Owen 
Roe  on  that  account,  but  he  was  very  clearly  not  killed. 
Carte  unquestionably  based  his  first  statement  on  Bellings' s 
letter,  and  then  overlooked  the  fact  of  the  dead  man's 
reappearance. 

In  July  Venables  and  Coote  undertook  the  long-de- 
ferred siege  of  Charlemont.  Mulhollan,  whose  sympathies 
were  very  much  on  the  other  side,  says  that  the  siege 
lasted  five  or  six  weeks,  during  which  the  British  lost  500 
men.  There  is  no  corroboration  from  other  quarters  of 
either  statement.  Venables' s  account  is  that  the  guns 
were  got  up  without  delay  to  within  fifty  yards  of  the 
walls  and  a  breach  effected.  In  the  assault  which  followed 
the  British  were  repulsed  with  a  loss  of  40  killed  and  250 
wounded.*  On  August  6,  however,  the  garrison  put  up 
the  white  flag,  and  Sir  Phelim  came  out  to  discuss  terms 
with  the  two  leaders,  while  Audley  Mervyn*  and  Sir 
Robert  King  went  into  the  fortress  as  hostages  for  Sir 
Phelim' s  safe  return.  Terms  were  agreed,  the  fortress  was 
surrendered,  and  Sir  Phelim  and  his  garrison  were  allowed 
to  march  out  with  their  arms.4 

1  Life  of  Ormonde,  vol.  ii.  p.  56. 

•  Venables  to  Cromwell,  August  1650. 

3  This  is  the  first  occasion  on  which  Mervyn  appears  on  the  side  of  the 
Cromwellians.  He  was  not  present  at  Scarriffhollis. 

*  Warr  of  Ireland. 


382         THE   END   OF  THE   IRISH   WARS       [CHAP,  xin 

Coote  had  told  Sir  Phelim  that  he  must  leave  Ireland, 
but  this  course  had  evidently  little  attraction  for  the  late 
Governor  of  Charlemont,  who  had — as  his  third  wife — 
married  Lord  Strabane's  widow,  with  whom  he  had 
acquired  considerable  property  in  north  Tyrone.  To  his 
own  undoing  he  remained. 

For  over  two  and  half  years  Sir  Phelim  retained  his 
liberty,  but  he  had  a  relentless  pursuer  in  the  person  of 
young  Lord  Caulfield,  who  had  been  re-established  in 
Charlemont  from  the  moment  of  its  capture.  Lord 
Caulfield  had  not  only  his  elder  brother's  death  to  avenge 
but  also  the  terrible  atrocities  which  had  been  committed 
on  his  brother's  tenants  and  on  other  British  colonists 
living  in  and  around  Charlemont.  As  a  preliminary  step, 
Sir  Phelim' s  wife  was  taken  prisoner  and  kept  at  Charle- 
mont, rather,  as  it  would  seem,  with  a  view  to  facilitating 
her  husband's  capture  than  for  any  offence  chargeable 
against  herself.  Retribution  finally  overtook  Sir  Phelim 
through  the  treachery  of  one  of  his  fellow  fugitives 
named  Philip  McHugh  O'Neil.  This  man,  who  was 
hiding  on  an  island  in  Co.  Tyrone  with  Sir  Phelim,  was 
tempted  by  the  price  of  £300  placed  on  the  latter' s  head 
to  betray  his  hiding  place  to  Lord  Caulfield.1  According 
to  Mulhollan  the  island  in  question  was  an  island  in  Lough 
Ruchan  close  to  Charlemont.  There  is  no  such  lough 
near  Charlemont,  and  it  is  clear  that  Mulhollan' s  topography 
is  here  at  fault.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  island 
on  which  Sir  Phelim  actually  hid  was  the  island  in  Lough 
Laigheare  (L.  Katherine  Baron's  Court).  This  lough  was 
in  the  centre  of  his  wife's  property  near  Newtownstewart. 
The  island  had  on  it  an  old  Danish  Castle,  and  was  so 
thickly  wooded  that  even  the  Castle  was  hidden  from 
the  shore  200  yards  distant.  Here,  in  the  midst  of  his 
wife's  retainers,  he  would  have  every  chance  of  living 
for  many  months  without  fear  of  detection.  A  betrayal 
was  his  only  danger,  and  to  that  risk  he  fell  a  victim. 
The  island  still  bears  the  name  of  "  Philip  McHugh," 
though — even  locally — the  origin  of  the  name  is  lost  in 
obscurity. 

Sir  Phelim  was  captured  by  Lord  Caulfield  in  February 
1653,  and  sent  to  Dublin  for  trial.  An  attempt  has  been 
made  to  impart  a  tinge  of  heroism  to  his  character  by 

1  Warr  of  Ireland. 


1650]  SIR   PHELIM   EXECUTED  383 

representing  that  he  was  offered  his  life  if  he  would  make 
the  statement  that  Charles  I  had  given  him  an  authority 
for  the  1641  rising,  and  that  he  nobly  refused  to  save  his 
life  by  incriminating  the  late  King.  Such  was  not  by 
any  means  the  case.  Sir  Phelim  had  made  statements 
incriminating  the  King  on  any  number  of  occasions. 
He  had  even  read  aloud  in  the  market-place  of  Armagh  a 
forged  document  which  purported  to  give  him  the  King's 
authority  for  everything  he  did.  If  he  had  found  no 
scruples  in  making  such  statements  for  ordinary  political 
purposes,  it  is  not  likely  that  he  would  have  hesitated 
to  make  them  in  order  to  save  his  life.  What  he  was 
challenged  to  do,  and  what  he  was  offered  his  life  if  he 
could  do,  was  to  prove  the  genuineness  of  the  royal 
authority  of  which  he  had  so  repeatedly  boasted.  This 
was  of  course  beyond  his  powers,  and  the  law  took  its 
course.  So  far  from  displaying  anything  in  the  nature  of 
heroism,  Sir  Phelim  would  appear,  at  his  trial,  to  have 
given  a  lamentable  exhibition  of  terror.  "  This  cruel 
monster  of  men,"  Michael  Jones  wrote  to  Major  Scott, 
"  when  he  first  came  to  the  bar,  was  scarce  able  to  stand 
for  trembling  or  to  speak  for  tears."  l 

Whether  Sir  Phelim  was  really  "  a  cruel  monster  of 
men  "  is  open  to  doubt ;  he  would  seem  rather  to  have 
been  a  weak  and  cowardly  creature,  lacking  the  courage 
to  check  or  reprove  the  atrocities  committed  by  his  fol- 
lowers. It  is  seldom  that  we  find  him,  as  we  do  Rory 
Maguire,'  actually  superintending  and  directing  massacres  ; 
he  is  more  often  the  onlooker  from  a  distance.  As  soon 
as  war  took  the  place  of  massacre  he  ceased  to  be  a  figure 
of  the  first  importance.  His  name,  which  figures  in  every 
page  of  the  massacre  records,  is  seldom  found  in  any  of 
the  chronicles  of  war.  Even  Charlemont,  which  was 
nominally  his  headquarters,  had  to  rely  on  others  when 
assailed  by  the  enemy.  Its  first  constable  had  been  Neil 
Modder  O'Neil,  who  was  succeeded  by  Nial  O'Neil.  The 
latter,  in  turn,  gave  place  to  an  Englishman  named  Captain 
Whyte,  who  was  replaced  by  another  Englishman  of  the 
name  of  Sandeford,  who  conducted  the  defence  operations 
during  the  final  siege.3  What  may  have  been  the  nature 

1  Colonel  Jones  to  Major  Scott,  March  1,  1653. 

2  Rory  Maguire  was  killed  by  a  bullet  at  the  siege  of  Carradrumruisk  in 
1648.  a  Friar  O'Mellan. 

26 


384         THE  END   OF  THE   IRISH  WARS       [CHAP,  xm 

of  the  inducement  offered  by  Sir  Phelim  to  these  two 
Englishmen  to  fight  for  him  is  not  known. 

The  capture  of  Charlemont  practically  completed  the 
conquest  of  Ulster,  and  from  that  time  on  Coote  trans- 
ferred his  energies  to  Connaught.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
Lough  Oughter  Castle  remained  in  the  occupation  of 
Philip  O'Reilly  till  April  1653,  when  it  was  delivered  up 
to  Sir  Theophilus  Jones,  and  O'Reilly  was,  very  properly, 
pardoned  for  any  share  he  might  have  had  in  the  1641 
rising. 

On  the  alarming  news  that  Charles  II  had  taken  the 
Covenant  and  had  landed  in  Scotland,  Cromwell  left 
Ireland  early  in  1650,  after  a  bare  nine  months'  stay  in 
the  island,  and  turned  his  attention  to  the  subjugation 
of  the  Scots,  who  had  openly  declared  for  the  young  King 
the  moment  he  had  taken  the  Covenant.  Cromwell's  son- 
in-law,  Ireton,  remained  to  carry  on  operations  in  Ireland. 
Ireton,  like  Cromwell,  preserved  the  most  rigid  discipline 
among  his  men,  and  punished  with  the  greatest  severity 
any  acts  of  robbery  or  violence  committed  against  the 
natives.  It  is  difficult  to  understand  why  Cromwell  is 
always  cited  in  patriotic  Irish  circles  as  the  arch-persecutor 
of  the  race.  Except  in  the  cases  of  Drogheda  and  Wexford, 
where  the  majority  of  the  victims  were  English,  his  con- 
quest of  Ireland  was  singularly  bloodless  and  entirely 
free  from  the  wanton  excesses  in  which  the  soldiery  so 
frequently  indulged  under  other  commanders.  By  the 
side  of  Inchiquin  or  Coote  he  stands  out  as  an  angel  of 
mercy.  It  seems  probable  that  the  original  idea  was  to 
enlist  sympathy  for  Ireland  by  depicting  the  most  un- 
popular character  in  British  history  as  her  arch-enemy. 
The  survival  of  the  idea  is,  without  a  doubt,  due  in  the 
main  to  ignorance  of  facts. 

On  the  establishment  of  peace,  a  sum  approaching  a 
million  sterling  was  found  to  be  due  to  the  British  troops 
in  respect  of  arrears  of  pay.  These  arrears  were  never 
paid,  but  were  satisfied  by  grants  of  land  under  the  scheme 
known  as  the  Cromwellian  Settlement. 


INDEX 


Acheson,  Sir  Archibald,  case  of,  74 

Acheson,  Colonel,  takes  the  Cove- 
nant, 299  ;  arrested,  347  ;  Gover- 
nor of  Enniskillen,  348 

Acrashanig,  massacre  at,  141 

Adair,  Patrick,  Presbyterian  Church 
in  Ireland,  299  n. 

Adair,  William,  298 

Adams,  Ellen,  mutilated,  146 

Adams,  John  and  Thomas,  mur- 
dered, 146 

Aghentain  Castle,  187  ;  attack  on, 
193 

Aldridge,  Robert,  141  ;    flight,  248 

Alleyne,  Captain,  54,  60 

Annesley,  Arthur,  316,  333 

Antrim,  6 ;  British  settlement  of, 
37  ;  attack  on,  215  ;  massacre  in, 
251  ;  famine,  264 ;  capture  of, 
353,  373 

Antrim,  Alice,  Countess  of,  charges 
against,  207 

Antrim  Castle,  166 

Antrim,  Randal,  Earl  of,  62  ;  in 
the  revolution,  111  ;  ordered  to 
seize  Dublin  Castle,  116  ;  return 
to  Dunluce,  262  ;  prisoner,  263  ; 
escape,  264 

Aphorismical  Discovery,  vi,  96,  114 
115  n.,  249,  250,  251  n.,  263  n. 
266,  273  n.,  279  n.,  282  n.,  286  n. 
289,  290,  293,  303,  304  n.,  308  n. 
324  n.,  327,  328  n.,  333,  334  n. 
337  n.,  338  n.,  339,  342  n.,  360  n. 
365  n.,  381 

Ardee,  168 

Ards,  Lord,  233 

Argyll,  Earl  of,  leader  of  the  Cove- 
nanters, 73  ;  regiment,  233  n. 

Armagh,  9,  65  ;  population  of,  6  ; 
distribution  of  land  in,  5 1 , 52 ;  mas- 
sacres in,  123,  235,  241  ;  taken 
by  the  rebels,  136  ;  refugees,  238  ; 
ruins  of,  241,  271  ;  concentration 
of  the  British  forces  at,  302 

Armagh  Church,  surrender  of  the 
refugees  in,  173 

Armstrong,  Captain,  162 


Armstrong,  Sir  Thomas,  361  ;  killed 

at  the  siege  of  Drogheda,  366 
Arran  Island.  32 
Artagarvey  House,  siege  of,  203 
Aston,  Sir  Arthur,  in  command  at 

Drogheda,  366,  367  ;   killed,  366, 

379 

Atherdee,  232 
Atkinson,  Anthony,  138 
Atkinson,  Roger,  147 
Augher  Castle,  12,  60  ;    attack  on, 

190,  192 
Aughnacloy,  189 

Bagwell,  Ireland  under  the  Stuarts, 
44  n.,  57  n. 

Bailey,  Captain  John,  surrenders, 
153 

Baker,  Lieut.,  surrenders  at  Deny, 
19 ;  in  charge  of  Culmore  Fort, 
26 

Balfour,  Major,  killed,  352 

Balleymoney,  massacre  at,  204 

Ballinrosse,  massacre  at,  200 

Ballintoy  House,  siege  of,  205 

Ballybeg,  battle  of,  286 

Bally  castle,  massacre  at,  207:  burnt, 
262 

Ballykelly,  relief  of,  268  ;  surren- 
der of,  376 

Ballymena,  165 

Ballynakill,  battle  of,  286 

Ballynemony,  61 

Ballyshannon,  Castle  of,  186  ;  mas- 
sacre at,  249  ;  surrender  of,  376 

Bann,  the,  164,  222,  262,  269; 
fishing  rights  of,  59 

Barclay,  Captain,  killed,  191 

Barnaby,  Francis,  185 

Barret-Lennard,  Mr.,  141 

Barry,  Colonel,  offers  to  raise  troops, 
294 

Batemanson,  Marmaduke,  157 

Bates,  Account  of  Drogheda  Siege. 
367  n. 

Bawn,  Daniel,  shelters  British,  244, 
249 

Beal,  Colonel,  316 


385 


INDEX 


Beare,  Jane,  on  the  massacre  in 
LoughgaU  Church,  174 

Bedell,  Ambrose,  112;  prisoner, 
152  ;  in  command  of  Croughan 
Castle,  159 

Bedell,  William,  Bishop  of  Kilmore, 
85;  prisoner,  152;  illness,  153; 
death,  153 

Beg,  John,  number  of  victims  in 
massacres,  255 

Belfast,  the  British  at,  162  ;  meet- 
ing of  Ulster  leaders  at,  298,  301  ; 
seizure  of,  346  ;  protest  against 
the  execution  of  Charles  I,  349  ; 
surrender  of,  370 

Belling,  Captain,  87 

Bellings,  Richard,  vi ;  Confedera- 
tion and  War,  303  n.,  307  n., 
322  n.,  329  n.,  337  n.,  339  n., 
340  n.,  354  n.,  364  n.,  378  n., 
379  n.  ;  Vice-President  of  the 
Supreme  Council  of  Confederate 
Catholics,  322 

Belturbet,  55 ;  treatment  of  the 
British  at,  149-151  ;  exodus 
from,  150  ;  massacre,  155 

Benburb,  Irish  victory  at,  122,  250, 
327 

Beresford,  Colonel  Mark,  in  com- 
mand at  Dungiven  Castle,  376  ; 
prisoner,  376 

Berkeley,  Robert,  139 

Bernard,  Dr.,  Dean  of  Armagh, 
Whole  Proceedings,  228  ;  on  the 
number  massacred,  246 

Berry,  William,  murdered,  146 

Berwick,  Rawdon  Papers,  252  n. 

Bevridge,  Mr.,  murdered,  240 

Bingley,  Sir  Ralph,  26  ;  at  Inch 
Island,  13 

Birge,  Mr.,  murdered,  208 

Birt  Castle,  19  ;  assault  on,  26,  27  ; 
surrender  of,  27 

Blackwater,  number  drowned  in 
the,  224;  Church,  massacre  at,  243 

Blair,  Captain,  taken  prisoner,  306 

Blayney  Castle,  seized  by  the 
rebels,  137 

Blayney,  Lady,  prisoner,  138,  253  ; 
unsuccessful  search  for,  271 

Blayney,  Lord,  escape,  138  ;  meet- 
ing at  Belfast,  301  ;  commands 
Lisburn  regiment,  317 ;  at  the 
battle  of  Benburb,  326  ;  killed, 
327 

Blayney,  Richard,  prisoner,  138 ; 
killed,  139 

Blennerhasset,  Anne,  evidence  on 
the  massacres,  145 


Blennerhasset,  Thomas,  48 

Blount,  Captain,  162 

Blundell,  William,  murdered,  178 

Bodley,  Sir  Thomas,  survey  of  the 
counties,  40  ;  prospectus,  43 

Bolton,  Charles,  271 

Borlase,  Sir  John,  Lord  Justice,  78, 
93;  Rebellion,  119n. 

Boswell,  Mrs.,  murdered,  176,  198 

Boswell,  William,  murdered,  198 

Boyd,  Archibald,  205 

Boyd,  Captain,  killed,  182 

Boyne,  river,  168,  227 

Bramhall,  Bishop  of  Deny,  77  ;  on 
the  condition  of  the  Church,  85 

Branthwaite,  Robert,  249;  pri- 
soner, 138 

Brantry,  272 

Brereton,  Henry,  255 

Brent,  Sarah,  murdered,  146 

Brickland,  Lough,  island,  capture 
of,  233 

British  Colonists  in  Ulster,  7,  36, 
62  ;  relations  with  the  Irish,  47, 
95,  103,  219,  257 ;  massacres, 
109,  112,  123-128,  135-207,  215- 
218,  221-226,  235-256;  retalia- 
tory massacres,  207,  212,  234, 
254,  256;  number  killed,  211, 
246;  sufferings  and  privations, 
252-257  ;  prisoners  released,  271, 
274;  programme  of  the  Irish,  284 

Bromley,  Margaret,  on  the  number 
drowned  at  Scarva,  223 

Brough,  Major,  at  Lisburn,  370 

Brownlow,  John,  61 

Brownlow,  William,  case  of,  61 

Brownlow,  Sir  William,  surrenders 
Lurgan,  172  ;  prisoner,  238,  271  ; 
captures  Dungannon  Castle,  272 

Buckingham,  George,  1st  Duke  of, 
expedition  to  Rochelle,  71;  as- 
sassinated, 72 

Buncrana,  17 

Bundooragh,  122  ;  battle  of,  214, 
250,  275 

Burke,  Edmund,  138 

Burley,  Captain,  wounded,  182 

Burns,  Mr.,  murdered,  192 

Byrne,  Colonel,  131  ;  prisoner,  337  ; 
killed  at  the  siege  of  Drogheda, 
366 

Byrons,  Sir  Robert,  at  the  siege  of 
Drogheda,  366 

Cadogan,  Captain,  228 

Calendar  State  Papers,  11  n.,  12  n., 
13  n.,  16  n.,  17  n.,  18  n.,  19  n., 
21  n.,  22  n.,  25  n.,  28  n.,  29  n., 


INDEX 


887 


33  n.,  34  n.,  35  n.,  38  n.,  41  n., 
46  n.,  50  n.,  51  n.,  52  n.,  53  n., 
54  n.,  55,  56  n.,  60  n.,  67  n.,  74  n., 
75  n.,  77  n..  80  n.,  98  n.,  100  n., 
185  n.,  277  n. 
Campbell,  Charles,  saved  from 

hanging,  142 

Canning,  George,  besieged,  203 
Carew,  ominous  prophecy,  63 
Carigans,  seizure  of,  351 
Carleton,  Sir  Dudley,  80 
Carlingford,   surrender,   234 ;    cap- 
ture of,  370 
Carlisle,  Bishop  of,  10 
Carr,  James,  hanged,  155 
Carradrumruisk,  siege  of,  383  n. 
Carragh,  Shane,  34 
Carrickfergus,    86,    233,    261,    287; 
arrival  of   Dutch  ships  at,   296  ; 
siege  of,  353,  374 
Carrickmacross,  massacres  at,  200  ; 

burnt,  332 

Carte,  Thomas,  vi ;  Life  of  James, 
Duke  of  Ormonde,  92,  93,  131  n., 
132  n.,  133  n.,  134  n.,  231,  246, 
276  n.,  364  n.,  381  n.  ;  on  the 
causes  of  the  Rebellion  of  1641, 
95;  the  military  abilities  of 
Owen  Roe,  279 ;  the  number 
killed  at  Benburb,  327 
Castle,  Colonel,  killed  at  Drog- 

heda,  366 

Castlehaven,  Lord,  Commander-in- 
Chief  of  the  Ulster  Army,  303  ; 
skirmish  at  Dromore,  306  ;  with- 
draws to  Charlemont,  306  ;  quar- 
rels with  Owen  Roe,  307  ;  retires 
south,  308 

Castleton,  Richard,  prisoner,  152 
Cathcart,  Captain,  killed,  377 
Cathcart,  Mr.,  147 
Cattle,  torture  of,  192 
Caulfield,  Lady,  discovery  of,  271 
Caulfield,  Lord,  captures  Sir  Phelim 

O'Neil,  382 

Caulfield,  Toby,  Lord,  62;  rent- 
collector,  53  ;  grant  of  land,  53  ; 
at  Charlemont  Castle,  135  ;  mur- 
dered, 175,  225 

Cavan,  population,  6  ;   distribution 
of  land,  54-56  ;    massacres,  123, 
149 
Cessation   of    1643,   292 ;     expires, 

306 

Chadwell,  Mr.,  murdered,  240 
Champion,    Arthur    and    Thomas, 

hanged,  146 

Charlemont  Castle,  135,  267  ;  seized 
by  the  rebels,  136  ;  massacre  at, 


244  ;  surrender,  272 ;  siege,  276, 
381 ;  abandoned,  290 
Charles  I,  King,  compensation  from 
the  City  Companies,  42,  77;  ac- 
cession, 71  ;  methods  of  raising 
money,  71  ;  submission  to  the 
Scots'  demands,  72 ;  secret  in- 
trigues with  Ireland,  73  ;  exac- 
tions from,  73  ;  subsidy,  74 ; 
warning  on  the  Irish  rising,  114; 
negotiations,  115,  116,  321  ;  war 
with  the  Covenanters,  117;  con- 
demns the  Covenant,  298  ;  sum- 
mons the  Oxford  Convention, 
309 ;  on  the  demands  of  the 
Irish,  311  ;  concessions  to,  312, 
318;  treatment  of  Glamorgan, 
323  ;  taken  by  the  Scots,  331, 
343 ;  appeals  to  the  English  Par- 
liament for  help,  331  ;  flight, 
343 ;  prisoner  in  the  Isle  of 
Wight,  343  ;  secret  treaty  with 
the  Scots,  344 ;  execution,  349 
Charles  II,  King,  restoration,  257; 
proclaimed  King,  350  ;  delay  in 
taking  the  Covenant,  355  ;  takes 
the  oath,  384 

Chichester,  Arthur,  Lord,  change 
in  his  policy,  5,  8  ;  Lord  Deputy 
of  Ireland,  24,  65  ;  his  repression 
of  O'Dogherty's  rebellion,  24,  31 ; 
overtures  to  Neil  Garv,  25 ; 
assizes  at  Dungannon,  30 ;  at 
Coleraine,  31  ;  colonisation  of 
Ulster,  36,  39  ;  reclamation  of  the 
natives,  39 ;  on  the  treachery 
of  the  Irish,  47  ;  tolerance  for 
religion,  48  ;  imposition  of  fines, 
49;  on  the  distribution  of  land 
in  Cavan,  55,  56  ;  opinion  of  Sir 
D.  O'Cavan,  57;  created  Lord, 
62  ;  retirement,  65  ;  death,  65  ; 
compared  with  Cromwell,  65 ; 
character,  66 ;  grants  of  land, 
66 ;  methods  of  warfare,  66 ; 
reasons  for  his  unpopularity,  66 
Chichester,  Colonel  Arthur,  in  com- 
mand of  the  British  force  at  Bel- 
fast, 162  ;  march  to  Dromore, 
164  ;  withdraws  to  Lisburn,  164  ; 
bullet  passes  through  his  hair, 
233  ;  foraging  expedition,  287  ; 
meeting  at  Belfast,  298,  301 
Clandeboye,  James,  Lord,  62,  233, 

271 
Clandeboye,  Lord,  taken  prisoner, 

374 

Clankelly,  54,  100 
Clarendon,   Edward,   Earl  of,   92 ; 


INDEX 


on  the  causes  of  the  Rebellion  of 
1641,  95 

Clarke,  William,  222 

Clogher,  185 

Clogy  Rev.  Mr.,  Life  of  Bedell, 
68  n.,  84  n.,  85  n.,  112n.,  127, 
128  n.,  159  n.,  160  n.,  246  n. 

Clones,  seized  by  the  rebels,  141  ; 
massacres  at,  142 ;  battle  of, 
288 

Clonfeacle,  massacres  at,  248 

Clontarf  Harbour,  provision  ship 
seized,  134 

Clotworthy,  Colonel  James,  captures 
Mountjoy,  272  ;  at  the  battle  of 
Dungan  Hill,  336 

Clotworthy,  Sir  John,  132,  167; 
commands  garrison  at  Antrim, 
208;  result  of  his  ruse,  274; 
rescues  prisoners,  274 

Codan,  Captain,  Constable  of  Dun- 
gannon  Castle,  hanged,  272 

Coke,  Sir  Edward,  71 

Cole,  Sir  William,  68  ;  rescue  work, 
124  ;  warned  of  the  rising,  132, 
144  ;  escape  from  Crevenish,  143  ; 
fails  to  warn  the  British,  144,  185; 
controversy  with  Sir  F.  Hamil- 
ton, 144,  185  ;  defence  of  Ennis- 
killen,  145  ;  meeting  at  Belfast, 
298  ;  takes  the  Covenant,  299  ; 
imprisoned,  348 

Coleraine,  9,  21  ;  population,  6 ; 
executions  at,  31  ;  distribution  of 
county  lands,  56-59 ;  county 
confiscated,  56 ;  houses  built,  59  ; 
mortality  of  refugees,  213;  re- 
lief of,  269;  capture,  347,  353; 
evacuated,  373 

Confederate  Catholics,  Supreme 
Council  at  Kilkenny,  relations 
with  Owen  Roe,  280,  329,  338, 
372  ;  policy  of,  283,  348  ;  alli- 
ance with  Ormonde,  292-294, 
329  ;  fails  to  supply  troops,  294  ; 
treaty  with  Glamorgan,  322 
members  imprisoned,  330  ;  rup- 
ture with  Rinuccini,  342 

Connaught,  expedition  against,  314 

Connelly,  Pat,  139,  142 

Constable,  Joan,  deposition  on  the 
massacre  at  Mrs.  Smith's  cot- 
tage, 217 

Conway,  Colonel,  commands  the 
Lisburn  regiment,  317;  ravages 
in  Ulster,  332;  fate  of  his  regi- 
ment, 373  n. 

Conway,  Sir  Foulke,  created  Lord 
Conway,  62 ;  defeated  at  New- 


burn,  72,  86;  at  Belfast,  233; 
Marshal  of  Ireland,  234,  261  ; 
captures  Kinard,  271  ;  com- 
mander of  the  Lisburn  regiment, 
317;  deposed,  317;  victory  of 
Lisburn,  341 

Cook,  Catherine,  deposition  on  the 
massacres,  198 

Coomber  Castle,  161 

Coote,  Sir  Charles,  Governor  of 
Dublin,  133  ;  his  victory  at  Trim, 
275 ;  cruelty,  306,  380  ;  at  the 
Oxford  Convention,  309  ;  Gover- 
nor of  Connaught,  314  ;  relations 
with  the  Lagan  Force,  314  ;  cap- 
tures Sligo,  315 ;  invasion  of 
Connaught,  315;  commands 
Lagan  Force,  335 ;  Governor 
of  Derry,  335 ;  arrests  Sir  R. 
Stewart,  347 ;  seizes  Newtown- 
stewart,  347 ;  his  defence  of  Deny, 
351,  354;  overtures  to  Owen 
Roe,  360,  362  ;  defeat  of  Mont- 
gomery, 374 ;  precarious  posi- 
tion, 376  ;  arrival  of  reinforce- 
ments, 378  ;  siege  of  Charlemont, 
381 

Cork,  348  ;  raid  on,  305 

Corbett,  Mr.,  killed,  19 

Corbridge,  massacre  at,  5140,  243 

Connack,  John,  195  ;  evidence  on 
the  massacres,  146,  148 

Corry,  Anne  ny,  209 

Cottingham,  Rev.  George,  Rector 
of  Monaghan,  140 

Covenant,  The  Solemn  League  and, 
297,  344 

Covenanters,  Scottish,  revolt,  72  ; 
war  with  Charles  I,  117 

Cox,  Richard,  Hibernia  Anglicana, 
116  n. 

Craig,  Archie,  murdered,  247 

Craig,  Sir  James,  defence  of 
Croughan  Castle,  153  ;  death,  159 

Craig,  Lady,  death,  159 

Crawford,  Colonel,  134 

Creevelough,  massacre  at,  240 

Creichton,  Alexander,  140 

Creichton,  Rev.  George,  106 ;  on 
the  Pale  Lords  and  the  Irish,  111; 
on  the  rebellion,  118;  evidence 
on  the  massacres,  150,  199 

Crevenish  Castle,  143 

Croker,  Elizabeth,  255 

Cromwell,  Sir  Edward,  6 

Cromwell,  Oliver,  compared  with 
Lord  Chichester,  65 ;  policy  in 
Ireland,  257  ;  lands  in  Dublin, 
365 ;  siege  of  progheda,  365- 


INDEX 


389 


367  ;  massacres,  366-368  ;  pro- 
clamation, 368 ;  result  of  his 
methods,  369;  leaves  Ireland, 
384 

Cromwell,  Sir  Thomas,  62.  See  Le- 
cale 

Crossach,  Brian,  22 

Croughan,  Castle  of,  attack  on, 
154;  retaliatory  raid,  158;  siege, 
158;  surrender,  160 

Culmore  Fort,  17,  347  ;  capture  of, 
18 

Daly,  Dr.,  flight,  199 

Dalziel,  Colonel,  refuses  to  take  the 
Covenant,  299;  commands  at 
Carrickfergus,  353 ;  surrenders, 
374 

Dargan,  Sir  John,  offers  to  raise 
troops,  294 

Davies,  Sir  John,  43,  195 ;  His- 
torical Tracts,  52  ;  on  the  system 
of  exactions,  104,  105 

Deirendreiat,  alleged  victory  at, 
250 

Derg,  Castle,  189  ;  attack  on,  re- 
pulsed, 191 

Derg  river,  51 

Deny,  capture  of,  18;  burnt,  19; 
relief  force  at,  25  ;  houses  built, 
59;  defence  of,  265;  food 
shortage,  265  ;  siege,  351-357  ; 
raised,  363 

Desart,  Castle,  capture  of,  379 

Despatch  of  an  Unknown  Officer, 
256,  322  n. 

Devine,  Hugh,  prisoner,  267 

Digby,  Captain,  205;  at  Dunluce 
Castle,  262 

Dillon,  Sir  James,  130  ;  victory  at 
Mullingar,  286 

Dillon,  Lord,  Lord  Justice,  78 

Disputatio  Apologetica,  246 

Dixon,  Timothy,  hanged,  155 

Docwra,  Sir  Henry,  12,  43,  57 

Dogh  Castle,  21,  29  ;  assault  on,  27  ; 
surrender,  30 

Donegal,  64  ;  population,  6 ;  dis- 
tribution of  land,  50 ;  murders 
in,  247 

Donegal  Castle,  21 

Donellan,    Judge,    at    trial    of    Sir 

"•Phelim  O'Neil,  112,  125,  141  n.  ; 

at  the  Oxford  Convention,  309 

Donnelly,  Patrick  Modder,  241  ; 
seizes  Dungannon  Castle,  135 

Dowcoran,  61 

Down,  6  ;  British  settlement,  37  ; 
number  massacred,  249,  251 


Down,  Bishop  of,  receives  news  of 
the  rising,  161,  185;  flight  to 
Belfast,  185 

Doyne,  Michael,  184 

Doyne,  Mrs.,  shelters  British,  183, 
218,  249;  courageous  conduct, 
184 

Doyne,  Theresa,  184 

Drogheda,  siege  of,  159,  168,  227, 
365^367;  reinforcements,  170; 
arrival  of  food  supplies,  227, 
228 ;  failure  of  the  attack  on,  229 ; 
troops  inspected,  335;  surrender 
of,  361  ;  massacres,  366-368 

Dromore,  163  ;  defence  of,  164  ; 
capture,  164  ;  ruins,  233  ;  skir- 
mish at,  306,  370 

Drumboate  House,  seized  by  rebels. 
137 

Dublin  Castle,  plan  for  the  seizure, 
131 

Dublin,  condition  of  the  refugees  in, 
151  ;  mortality,  152 ;  enrolled, 
170;  siege,  331,  334;  raised, 
333 ;  parliamentary  troops  in, 
334;  reinforcements,  363 

Duckingfield,  Captain,  at  the  battle 
of  Scarriffhollis,  379 

Duffey,  Loughlin,  141 

Dunbar,  battle  of,  352 

Dunbar,  James,  195 

Dundalk,  168,  370 ;  capture  of, 
232  ;  siege,  361 ;  surrender  of,  361 

Dungannon,  assizes  at,  30 

Dungannon  Castle,  seized  by  the 
rebels,  135 ;  capture  of,  271, 
286  ;  surrender  of,  290 

Dungiven  Castle,  surrender  of,  268, 
376 

Dunluce  Castle,  205,  262 

Dunluce,  Randal,  Viscount,  62.  See 
Antrim 

Dunseverick,  205 

Dutch,  provisions  for  Ireland,  296 

EdgehiU,  battle  of,  276 

Edinburgh,  Covenant  signed  at,  72 

Edmonstone,  Captain,  162 

Eglinton,  Earl  of,  regiment,  233  n. 

Eikon  Basilike,  pamphlet,  360 

Elizabeth,  Queen,  her  parsimony, 
69;  annual  expenditure,  69 

Ellis,  Major,  215  ;  commands  gar- 
rison at  Camckfergus,  353 

England,  parliamentary  revolt  in, 
92  ;  League  and  Covenant  |with 
Scotland,  297 

Enniskillen,  defence  of,  145 ;  re- 
volt in,  348 


INDEX 


Episcopalian  clergy,  character  of,  84 

Erne,  Lough,  147,  154 

Erskine,     Alexander,     at     Augher 

Castle,  191 

Erskine,  Sir  James,  191 
Erskine,  Major,  arrested,  347 
Ewer,  Colonel,  attack  on  Drogheda, 

366 

Falkland.Viscount,  his  unpopularity, 
74 ;  recalled,  75 

Fanad,  26 

Farmenie,  Mr.,  murdered,  141 

Farney,  38 

Farnham  Castle,  seized  by  the 
rebels,  149 

Fennell,  Colonel,  307 

Fenwick,  Colonel,  at  Lifford,  378; 
wounded  at  the  battle  of  Scar- 
riffhollis,  378 

Fermanagh,  9,  28  ;  population,  6  ; 
distribution  of  land,  53 ;  mas- 
sacres, 124  ;  number  killed,  148  ; 
extermination  of  the  British,  249 

Feudal  system,  suspension  of,  4 ; 
abolition,  104,  106 

Fews,  the,  192  ;  extermination  of 
the  British,  243 

Finis,  Margaret,  on  the  number 
massacred  at  Kilmore,  244 

Fingall,  Lord,  134  ;  prisoner  at  the 
battle  of  Rathmines,  365 

Finn,  river,  51;  battle  at,  288; 
Valley,  15 

Fisher,  Captain,  at  Lisburn,  180 

Fitzwilliam,  Sir  William,  redistri- 
bution of  Monaghan,  38 

Flemming,  Captain,  killed  at  the 
siege  of  Derry,  354 

Folliott,  Sir  Henry,  26,  27 ;  ad- 
vance on  Tory  Island,  32  ; 
Governor  of  Ballyshannon,  186 

Folliott,  Lord,  Governor  of  Deny, 
317 

Forbes,  Sir  Archibald,  159 

Fortescue,  Sir  Faithful,  Governor 
of  Drogheda,  168 

Fotherly,  Sir  Thomas,  77 

Foyle,  the,  21,  190,  265,  378;  fish- 
ing  rights.  59 

Fullerton,  Robert,  166,  205  ;  mur- 
dered, 176 

Galbraith,  Colonel,  287,  350;  at 
the  siege  of  Derry,  351  ;  pri- 
soner, 352  ;  wounded,  354 

Galbraith,  Sergeant-Major,   194 

Ganally,  massacre  at,  112 

Garvagh,  122  ;   battle  at,  213,  250 


Garvin,  Lieut.,  209 

Gauden,  John,  author  of  Eikon  Basi- 
like,  350 

Gavelkind,  custom  of,  45,  65 

Gibbs,  William,  155 

Gibson,  Captain,  169 

Gibson,  James,  murdered,  179 

Gilbert,  J.  S.,  Contemporary  His- 
tory, 48  n.,  96  n.,  100  n.,  222  n., 
239  n.,  310  n.,  342  n.,  359  n., 
366  n. 

Glamorgan,  Edward,  Earl  of,  Gene- 
ralissimo of  all  the  Forces,  320; 
powers  conferred  upon  him,  320  ; 
in  Ireland,  322  ;  Treaty  with  the 
Supreme  Council,  322  ;  arrested, 
323 ;  Treaty  with  Rinuccini, 
323  ;  released,  323 

Glasdromin  House,  137 

Glasslough,  seized  by  the  rebels, 
139 

Glenarm,  burnt,  262 

Glencairn,  Earl  of,  regiment,  233  n. 

Glenconkein,  31 

Glenmaquin,  battle  of,  190,  266, 
269,  275 

Glenravel  Water,  206 

Glenveagh,  26, 42  ;  description  of ,  27 

Glover,  Adam,  151 

Gordon,  Lieut.,  killed,  19 

Gore,  Colonel,  wounded  at  Scarriff- 
hollis,  378 

Gore,  Sir  Ralph,  186  ;  at  Donegal, 
187  ;  at  Raphoe,  265 

Gormanston,  Lord,  134  ;  leader  of 
the  Pale  Lords,  22 

"  Graces,"  meaning  of  the  term, 
74,  76  ;  demand  for  the  grant, 
78 

Graham,  Major,  arrested,  347,  352 

Green,  J.  R.,  History  of  the  English 
People,  121 

Green,  Thomas,  escape,  237 

Greig,  Alice,  deposition  on  the  mas- 
sacres at  Loughgall  Church,  174 

Greig,  John  and  Richard,  tortured, 
174 

Grenville,  Sir  Richard,  in  Dublin, 
229 

Grier,  John,  196 

Gustavus  Adolphus,  King  of  Sweden, 
army,  44 

Hall,  Sir  Charles,  10 

Hamilton,    Archibald,    at    Augher 

Castle,  191 

Hamilton,  Colonel,  prisoner,  374 
Hamilton,    Sir    Francis,    68,    150 ; 

defence  of  Keilagh  Castle,  153  ; 


INDEX 


891 


illness,     159;      surrender,     160; 

attack    on    Sligo,    315;     at    the 

Oxford  Convention,  309 
Hamilton,    Sir    Frederick,    contro- 
versy with  Sir  W.  Cole,  144,  185  ; 

character,   144;    at  Deny,   186; 

takes  the  Covenant,  299 
Hamilton,  James,  298 
Hamilton,    Sir     James,     62.      See 

Clandeboye 

Hamilton,  Major,  prisoner,  352 
Hamilton,  Sir  William,  change  of 

religion,  267 
Hammond,    Colonel,    Governor    of 

Carisbrook  Castle,  343 
Hamskin,  Jane,  123,  255 
Hansard,  Sir  Richard,  Governor  of 

Lifford,  16  ;    rebuilds  it,  51 
Harcourt,  Sir  Simon,  134,  201 
Harding,  Mary,  murdered,  179 
Harris,  Mr.,  sub-Sheriff  of  Donegal, 

killed,  19 
Harris,    Walter,    Hibernica,    42  n., 

51  n.,  52  n.,  54  n.,  99  n.,  250 
Harrison,   Michael,    116,    136,    177, 

244 
Hart,  Captain,  Governor  of  Culmore 

Fort,     1 7 ;      prisoner,     17;      re- 
leased, 21 
Hart,  Mrs.,  17,  21 
Henderson,  Colonel,  killed,  374 
Henderson,  Hugh,  298 
Henry  VIII,  on  the  tanistry  sys- 
tem, 102 
Herbert,       Edward,      Lord.       See 

Glamorgan 
Hibernia     Anglicana,     17,     273  n., 

315  n.,  336  n.,  354  n. 
Hickson,  Ireland  in  the  Seventeenth 

Century,     76  n.,     108  n.,     118  n., 

126  n.,  206  n.,  213  n. 
Hickson,  Alice,  on  the  massacres, 

126 
Higginson,  Nathaniel,  evidence  on 

the  massacres,  109,  151 
High  Commission  Court,  functions 

of,  82 
Hjll,    Colonel    Arthur,    at    Belfast, 

162,  298,  301 
Hill,  Rev.    George,  McDonnells  of 

Antrim,  204, 205  n.,  206 n.,  262  n., 

264  n. 

Hockley,  184 
Hovedon,  Alexander,  in  charge  of 

British    prisoners,    239;     killed, 

240  ;  on  the  ruins  of  Armagh,  241 
Hovedon,  Catherine,  239 
Hovedon,  Charles,  killed,  307 
Hovedon,  Henry,  239 


Hovedon,  Mrs.,  shelters  British,  249 
Hovedon,  Robert,  99,  239 
Hume,  Colonel,  regiment,  233  n. 
Hume,  Sir  John,  case  of,  74 
Hume,     Lady,     surrenders     Tully 

Castle,  196 
Hunk,  Colonel,  regiment,  377 

Inch,  island  of,  12 

Inchiquin,  raid  on  Cork,  305;  his 
cruelty,  306  ;  destruction  in  Mun- 
ster,  342;  captures  Drogheda, 
361 

Independent  Party,  343,  345 

Infants,  torture  of,  255 

Inishowen,  15,  26 

Ireland,  borderers  transferred  to, 
10 ;  payment  of  subsidies,  74, 
76,  78 ;  Lords  Justices  on 
the  burden  of  taxation,  79 ;  list 
of  thirty-seven  petitions,  80 ; 
amendment  referring  to  the  Earl 
of  Straff ord,  81  ;  High  Commis- 
sion Court,  82  ;  two  factions,  91  ; 
effect  on  history,  92-94  ;  causes 
of  the  Rebellion  of  1641,  95,  113  ; 
pre-war  condition,  96 ;  custom 
of  the  upper  classes,  101  ;  aboli- 
tion of  the  feudal  system,  104, 
106  ;  system  of  exactions,  104  ; 
proclamation  of  the  rebels,  108  ; 
massacres,  109;  discontent  of  the 
upper  classes,  119;  famine  of 
1603,  120  ;  plans  for  the  revo- 
lution, 130 ;  motives  for  the 
massacres,  157;  duration  of  the 
rebellion,  275 

Ireland,  An  Account  of  the  Bloody 
Massacres  in,  146  n.,  256 

Ireton,  Henry,  operations  in  Ire- 
land, 384 

Irish,  number  sent  to  Sweden,  44  ; 
distaste  for  agricultural  labour, 
45,  96;  hatred  of  the  British 
colonists,  103,  109,  112,  257, 
284 ;  relations  with  the  Pale 
Lords,  111  ;  torture  cattle,  192  ; 
proclamation  of  aims,  284  ;  Par- 
liament, members,  310 

Irish  army  at  Carrickfergus,  86 ; 
refuses  to  embark  for  Spain,  87 ; 
disbanded,  87,  119 

Irish  children,  cruelties,  255 

Irish  women,  cruelties,  178,  255 

Irvine,  John,  209,  211 

Isle  of  Wight,  343 

Iveagh,  Hugh,  Lord,  62 

Iveagh,  Lady,  character,  237 

Iveagh,  Sara,  Lady,  239 


892 


INDEX 


Jacob,  Sir  Robert,  estimate  of  the 
native  population  of  Ulster,  6 

James  I,  King,  policy  of  concilia- 
tion, 3,  5,  73  ;  attempt  to  im- 
port aliens,  10  ;  decision  in  the 
case  of  the  island  of  Inch,  13  ; 
colonisation  of  Ulster,  36  ;  law 
against  intermarriage,  67  ;  prodi- 
gality, 69 ;  methods  of  raising 
money,  70  ;  death,  71  ;  cost  of 
his  funeral,  71 

Jones,  Henry,  255 

Jones,  Colonel  Michael,  333,  334  ; 
at  the  Oxford  Convention,  309; 
Governor  of  Dublin,  335  ;  in  com- 
mand of  the  forces,  335  ;  reviews 
the  troops  at  Drogheda,  335 ; 
victory  of  Dungan  Hill,  337 

Jones,  Sir  Theophilus,  in  charge  of 
Dungannon  Castle,  272  ;  surren- 
der, 286 ;  Governor  of  Dun- 
gannon, 290 ;  meeting  at  Bel- 
fast, 301  ;  Governor  of  Kells, 
333 ;  prisoner,  333 ;  negotia- 
tions with  Owen  Roe,  359  ;  vic- 
tory of  Rathmines,  364  ;  Lough 
Oughter  Castle  delivered  up  to,  384 

Julianstown,  British  defeat  at,  214 


Keilagh,  Castle  of,  154 ;  assault 
on,  155;  retaliatory  raid,  158; 
siege,  159 ;  sortie  from,  159 ; 
surrender,  160 

Kells,  capture  of,  333 

Kennedy,  Walter,  166;  surrenders 
Oldstone  Castle,  206 

Kerdiff,  Rev.  John,  deposition  on 
the  massacres,  198 

Kernan,  Lough,  massacres  at,  222, 
250 

Kilclooney,  massacre  at,  192 

Kilkenny,  Supreme  Council  at, 
280,  281  ;  consignments  of  war 
material,  282  ;  surrender,  330 

Killeevan,  convention  at,  235 

KUleleagh,  pillaged,  328 

KUlesandra,  154 

Killyman,  massacres  at,  240,  248 

Kilmacrenan  Castle,  51,  187 

Kilmore,  massacres  at,  123,  183, 
217,  244 

Kilrush,  British  victory  at,  275 

Kilsalghen,  defeat  of  the  rebels  at, 
230 

Kilwarlin  woods,  233 

Kinard,  29,  51  ;  massacres  at,  197, 
225,  243  ;  release  of  British  pri- 
soners, 271  ;  devastation,  360 


King,   Major,   captures  Emer  Mc- 

Mahon,  378 
King,  Sir  Robert,  316,  333  ;   at  the 

siege  of  Charlemont,  381 
Kinsale,  battle  of,  7,  14 
Kirby,    Peter,    deposition    on    the 

massacres  at  Belturbet,  155,  156 
Knocknimy,  54,   100 
Knocknoness,  battle  of,  339 
Knox,  Major,  346 

Lagan  Force,  rescue  work,  124 ; 
services  rendered  by,  124  ;  self- 
supporting,  165  ;  formation,  185  ; 
duties,  264  ;  reconstitution,  265  ; 
victories,  268,  275,  288  ;  record, 
269;  changes,  287;  total  strength, 
288 ;  memorandum  to  Parlia- 
ment, 313  ;  refuse  to  obey  Sir 
C.  Coote,  314;  grant  to,  316; 
first  reverse  at  Derry,  351  ;  aban- 
don the  siege,  356,  363  ;  join  the 
Cromwellians,  375 

Laggan,  Archie,  murdered,  216 

Laigheare,  Lough,  382 

Lambert,  Sir  Oliver,  24 

Lame  Castle,  167 

Laud,  Archbishop,  72 ;  in  the 
Tower,  78 

Lawson,  Robert,  defence  of  Lia- 
burn,  162 

Lawson,  Sir  Wilfrid,  10 

Locale,  Thomas,  Lord,  62 

Lecky,  W.  E.  H.,  on  the  revolution 
of  1641,  93,  113,  117;  weakness 
of  his  arguments,  120-125 ;  on 
the  massacres,  121-127 ;  His- 
tory of  England,  123  n.,  127  n. 

Lee,  Captain,  60 

Leinster  army,  285 

Leland,  John,  107 

Leslie,  General,  120 

Leslie,  John,  Bishop  of  Raphoe, 
356,  371 

Letterkenny,  377 

Ley,  Mr.,  43 

Lifford,  20,  378;  rebuilt,  51; 
evacuated,  376 

Limavady,  58,  268  ;   siege  of,  376 

Limitation,  Act  of,  129 

Lindsay,  Barnett,  retaliatory  mas- 
sacre at  Templepatrick,  207, 
209,  248 

Lindsay,  Lord,  regiment,  233  n. 

Linen  industry,  81,  96 

Lisburn,  161  ;  defence  of,  163, 
180;  attack  on,  181  ;  battle  of, 
340  ;  capture  of,  353,  373 

Lisgool,  massacre  at,  195 


INDEX 


893 


Lisnaskea,  massacre  at,  147 

Lissan,  seized  by  the  rebels,  189 ; 
massacre  at,  215 

Lockhart,  Sir  James,  killed  at  the 
battle  of  Tandaragee,  287 

Lodge,  Desiderata  Curiosa,  55  n., 
120  n. 

London  City  Companies,  land  al- 
lotted to,  42,  58  ;  suit  against, 
42,  77 

Londonderry,  County  of,  59 ;  mas- 
sacre in,  247 

Loughgall  Church,  massacre  in,  174 

Loughgilly,  massacre  at,  192 

Lough  Oughter  Castle,  272,  275, 
384 

Lowther,  Sir  Gerard,  at  the  Oxford 
Convention,  309 

Lowtherstown,  145 

Lucas,  Sir  Thomas,  at  Belfast,  162 

Ludlow,  Account  of  the  taking  of 
Drogheda,  367 

Luineach,  Tirlough,  51,  98 

Lurgan,  massacre  at,  172 

Lynchull,  John,  16 

McArt,  Art  McBrian,  surrender, 
33 ;  brigandage,  120 ;  execu- 
tion, 277 

Me  Art,  Tirlough,  24,  27 ;  grant  of 
land,  51  ;  number  of  acres,  64 

McBaron,  Art,  grant  of  land,  62  ; 
sons,  277 

McBaron,  Cormac,  12,  22  ;  case  of, 
59  ;  arrested,  60 

McBrian,  Cormac,  murdered,   120 

McBrian,  Shane,  sale  of  land,  7,  102 

McCann,  Neil,  seizes  Glasslough, 
139  ;  shelters  British,  249 

McCann,  Toole,  massacres,  172,  239 

McCartan,  Phelim,  6 

McClelland,  Lieut.,  killed  at  the 
siege  of  Deny,  354 

McCroo,  Patrick,  number  of  vic- 
tims, 255 

McDavitt,  Phelim  Reagh,  16; 
second  in  command  of  the  rebels, 
18;  at  Culmore,  21,  25;  flight, 
26  ;  prisoner,  30  ;  execution,  31 

McDonnell,  Alastair  McCollkittagh, 
1 66 ;  victory  at  Bundooragh, 
214 ;  wounded  at  Glenmaquin, 

266,  275;     killed    at    Shrubhill, 

267,  339 

McDonnell,  Donald  Gonn,  204 

McDonnell,  Edmund,  142 

McDonnell,  James  McCollkittagh, 
166;  treachery,  203,  206  ;  deposi- 
tion on  the  massacres,  204 


McDonnell,  John,  Ulster  Civil  Wars, 

267  n. 

McDonnell,  Sir  Randal,  62  ;  grant 
of  land,  7.  See  Dunluce  and  An- 
trim 

McGilliduff,  Doltagh,  16 

McGillmartin,  Donnell,  209 

McHenry,  John,  142 

McHenry,  Sir  Tirlough,  9 

McHenry,  Tirlough,  240  ;  fixed  in- 
come, 46  ;  grant  of  land,  52 

McHugh,  Neil,  sale  of  land,  7,  102 

McMahon,  Art  McBrian  Savagh, 
139;  cruelty,  140  n. 

McMahon,  Brian  ne  Savagh,  22  ; 
killed,  33 

McMahon,  Coll  McBrian,  168; 
conducts  siege  of  Drogheda,  227 

McMahon,  Emer  McLoughlin,  Bis- 
hop of  Clogher,  119,  131,  200; 
leader  of  the  Ulster  army,  375  ; 
captures  Castle  Toome,  376 ; 
generalship,  376,  377,  380 ;  op- 
position of  his  subordinates,  377  ; 
withdraws  to  Letterkenny,  377  ; 
defeat  at  Scarriffhollis,  378 ; 
prisoner,  378  ;  execution,  380  ; 
good  qualities,  380 

McMahon,  Hugh  Oge,  arrested,  131- 
133 

McMahon,  Hugh  Roe,  execution,  38 

McMahon,  Neil  McKenna,  138 

McMahon,  Captain  Owen,  killed,  170 

McMahon,  Patrick  McLoughlin,  141 ; 
seizes  Blayney  Castle,  137 

McMahon,  Redmond,  seizes  Clones, 
141 

McNeil,  Con,  6  ;  sale  of  his  estates, 
102 

McNeil,  Daniel,  102 

McO'Degan,  Hugh,  112 

McQuillan,  Rory  Oge,  sale  of  land, 
7,  102 

McRory,  Loughlin,  hanged,  287  n. 

McRory,  Thomas,  196 

McShane,  Con,  grant  of  land,  54 

McShane,  Henry,  121  ;  grant  of 
land,  52,  98 

McSkimmin,  History  of  Carrick- 
fergus,  66  n.,  166  n.,  210  n.,  211  n. 

McSweeney,  Bishop  of  Kilmore,  375 

McSweeney,  Neil,  27 

McToole,  Phelim,  333 ;  prisoner, 
378  ;  execution,  379  ;  report  of 
his  death,  381 

McVeagh,  James,  215 

Magee  Island,  7;  retaliatory  mas- 
sacre at,  209 ;  number  killed, 
211 


INDEX 


Magennis,  Sir  Con,  97,   137,   162 
withdraws    from    Lisburn,    163 
captures    Dromore,    164 ;     mas- 
sacre at  Newcastle,  237 
Magennis,  Daniel,  164,  237 
Magennis,  Hugh,  62.     See  Iveagh 
Magennis,      Hugh,      Constable     oi 

Newry  Castle,  surrender,  234 
Magennis,  Lady,  prisoner,  234,  239 
Magherastephana,  54,  100 
Magilligan,  battle  of,  268 
Maguire,   Brian,   Baron,   9 ;     grant 

of  land,  53 

Maguire  of  Tempo,  Brian,  courage 
and  loyalty  of,  147  ;  escapes  to 
Enniskillen,  147;  on  the  massacre 
at  Tully  Castle,  197;  shelters 
British,  249 

Maguire,  Connor,  Baron,  case  of,  99; 
character,  99  ;  grievance  against 
England,  104;  confession,  118, 
130;  arrested,  131,  133 
Maguire,  Connor  Roe,  9,  97  ;  con- 
cession of  land,  54,  100  ;  annuity, 
100,  101,  102 

Maguire,  Cuconnaught,  53 
Maguire,  Donough,  Castle  of,  gar- 
rison killed,  194 
Maguire,  Hugh,  killed,  53 
Maguire,  Hugh,  killed  at  Scarriff- 

hollis,  378 

Maguire,  Patrick  Oge,  142 
Maguire,  Rory,  97  ;    failure  of  his 
plot,  143  ;    treachery,  143  ;   mas- 
sacres,  145-147,    195,    196;     his 
cruelty,   145-147  ;    failure  of   his 
attack   on   Aghentain,    193;   de- 
feated, 197  ;  killed,  383  n. 
Marshall,  John,  211 
Marston  Moor,  battle  of,  305,  321 
Massacres   of    1641,    91,    142,    146, 
172,  183,  197,  198,  200,  207,  215- 
218,  238,  242;  depositions  on,  125 
Matchett,  Ellen,  escape,  183 
Matthews,  Colonel,  163;  defence  of 
Dromore,  164;    at  Belfast,  167; 
Governor  of  Newry,  296 ;    defies 
R.  Monro,  303 
Mattier,  Captain,  352 
Maxwell,  Grizel,  murdered,  175,  243 
Maxwell,  James,  murdered,  175,243 
Maxwell,  Dr.  Robert,  192,  244,  251 
Mayo,  Earl  of,   130 
Meath,  302  ;    depredations  at,  328 
Mellifont,  168;   capture  of,  169 
Mercer,  Mr.,  murdered,  192 
Meredith,    Major,    A     Relation    of 

Several.  Services,  370  n. 
Meredith,  Sir  Robert,  333 


Mervyn,  Colonel  Audley,  leader  of 
the  Lagan  Force,   118,   187;    on 
the  number  rescued,  124  ;    relief 
of  Augher  Castle,   194  ;    tribute 
to  the  Lagan  Force,  269  ;    meet- 
ing at  Belfast,  298  ;   his  regiment 
takes  the  Covenant,  299  ;  Gover- 
nor of  Derry,  300  ;  deposed,  316; 
arrested,  347 ;    escape,  352  ;    re- 
joins the  Lagan  Force,  352  ;    at 
the  siege  of  Charlemont,  381 
Mervyn,  Sir  Henry,  187 
Milk-tithe,  84 
Minterburn,  240 

Monaghan,  population,  6 ;  posi- 
tion, 9  ;  case  of,  9,  37  ;  exclusion 
from  the  Plantation  scheme,  38  ; 
seized  by  the  rebels,  137  ;  feast 
at,  141  n.  ;  massacres,  199,  248 
Monck,  Colonel  George,  in  Dublin, 
229  ;  Commander-in-Chief  in  Ul- 
ster, 335  ;  treatment  of  Monro, 
346  ;  seizes  Belfast,  346  ;  at  Cole- 
raine,  347 ;  evacuates  Lisburn, 
353  ;  terms  with  Owen  Roe,  360, 
362 
Monea  Castle,  massacre  at,  1 95 ; 

fate  of,  197 

Moneymore,    58 ;      seized    by    the 
rebels,    188;    massacre  at,   216; 
British  prisoners  released,  274 
Mongavlin  Castle,  20 
Monro,  Sir  George  joins  the  Carrick- 
fergus  army,  325  ;   leaves  Ulster, 
346  ;    at  the  siege  of  Derry,  352, 
355  ;    captures  towns,  353  ;  siege 
of  Carrickfergus,   353 ;     attempt 
to   recapture   Sligo,    353 ;     with- 
drawal from  Derry,  363  ;    evacu- 
ates   Coleraine,    373 ;      captures 
Antrim,  373  ;    escape,  374  ;    sur- 
renders Enniskillen,  375 
Monro,  General  Sir  Robert,  at  Car- 
rickfergus, 233,  261,  287;    Des- 
patch,    234  n.  ;      expedition     to 
Antrim,  262  ;    at  Dunluce,  263  ; 
Armagh,  271,  307,  325;    defeats 
Owen  Roe,  286;    declines  to  be 
bound    by   the    Cessation,    293 ; 
"  New  Scots  "  army,  294  ;   recall 
of    his    army,    295 ;     rescinded, 
296  ;    takes  the  Covenant,  299  ; 
Commander-in-Chief  of  the  Ulster 
Forces,  301  ;    march  to  Belfast, 
301  ;    at  Newry,  302  ;    intercepts 
supplies,  307  ;    at  the  battle  of 
Benburb,  326;    flight,  327;    in- 
ability   to   help    Ormonde,    331, 
332  ;    refuses  to  part  with  guns, 


INDEX 


395 


345  ;    arrested,  346  ;    sent  to  the 

Tower,  346 
Montgomery,     Bishop     of     Derry, 

rapacity  of,  58 
Montgomery,    Sir    James,    ordered 

to  raise  a  regiment,  165  ;    meet- 
ing at  Belfast,  298,  301 
Montgomery,    Lord,    at    Coomber 

Castle,  161  ;    meeting  at  Belfast, 

298,  301 
Montgomery,   Lord,   at  the  battle 

of  Benburb,  326  ;   prisoner,  327  ; 

takes    Carrickfergus,    353,    355 ; 

Commander-in-Chief    of    all    the 

Forces,  354,  356  ;   at  the  siege  of 

Derry,    354,    355 ;     withdrawal, 

363;     rout   of   his   forces,    374; 

flight,  374 
Montgomery,  Mrs.,  19,  27  ;    on  the 

number    massacred    at    Carrick- 

macross,  201 
Moore,  Sir  Garrett,  290 
Moore,  Lord,  defence  of  Drogheda, 

168  ;   killed  at  Portlester,  290 
Moore,  Roger,  plans  for  a  revolu- 
tion, 118,  129;   negotiations,  130 
Morris,  George,  222 
Moryson,  Fynes,  Itinerary,  66,  120 
Mountgarret,    Lord,    President    of 

the  Supreme  Council,  283 
Mountjoy,   Lord-Lieut,  of  Ireland. 

13 
Mountjoy  fort  seized  by  the  rebels, 

135,  272 

Mourne  Mountains,  256,  267,  376 
Mulhollan,    Warr   of   Ireland,    208, 

223,  288 

Mullaghbrack,  massacre  at,  192 
Mullingar,  Irish  defeat  at,  286 
Multifarnham  edict,  106-109 
Munster,  341 
Muskerry,    Lord,    at    the    Oxford 

Convention,  309 

Naas,  capture  of,  336 
Nalson,  historian,  92,  93 
Naseby,  battle  of,  321 
Naul,  Thomas,  escape,  241 
Neagh,  Lough,  376 ;    fishing,  59 
Newburn,  battle  of,  72,  86 
Newcastle,  massacre  at,  237 
Newcomen,  Sir  Robert,  187 
Newry,   296,   302;     seized   by  the 
rebels,    137  ;     capture    of,    234 ; 
executions  at,  234,  236 ;    surren- 
der, 370 
Newtown,  185 

Newtownbutler,  conference  at,  360 
Newtowncunningham,  seized,  351 


Newtownstewart,  189  ;    seized,  347 
Nonconformists,  warrant  to  arrest, 

82 
Norton  Castle,  167,  209 

Oath  of  Supremacy,  enforcement, 
83,  85 

Oblivion,  Act  of,  310 

O'Brien,  Dermot,  at  the  Oxford 
Convention,  309 

O'Cahan,  Connack  Reagh,  205 

O'Cahan,  Daniel,  289 ;  prisoner, 
290  ;  shot,  290 

O'Cahan,  Sir  Donnell,  9  ;  trial,  33  ; 
imprisoned  in  the  Tower,  34,  56, 
58  ;  death,  35  ;  record,  57  ;  case 
of,  59 

O'Cahan,  Manus,  siege  of  Arta- 
garvey  House,  203 ;  massacre, 
240 ;  in  Co.  Londonderry,  267 ;  de- 
feated at  Magilligan,  268,  275; 
prisoner,  268  ;  execution,  268 

O'Cahan,  Rory,  rebellion,  59  ;  exe- 
cution, 60 

O'Cahan,  Shane  Carragh,  22  ;  exe- 
cution, 30,  31 

O'Cahan,  Tirlough  Oge,  treachery, 
203 

O'Connell,  Hugh,  Governor  of 
Armagh,  238 

O' Connelly,  Owen,  discloses  rebel 
plot,  132,297;  at  Dublin,  133,273; 
sent  to  London,  133  ;  killed,  133, 
373  ;  in  command  of  Antrim,  373 

O'Connor,  Rev.  Dr.,  on  the  mas- 
sacres, 126 

O'Dogherty,  Brian  McCoyne,  16 

O'Dogherty,  Sir  Cahir,  9  ;  rebellion, 
11,  12,  16-21;  position,  12,  14; 
grievance  in  the  case  of  the  island 
of  Inch,  12,  14  ;  interview  with 
James  I,  13  ;  evil  influence  of 
Neil  Garv  O'Donnell,  16 ;  cap- 
tures Culmore  Fort,  16  ;  Derry, 
18  ;  releases  his  prisoners,  21  ; 
failure  of  his  rebellion,  21,  26; 
flight,  21,  28  ;  retreat  to  Glen- 
veagh,  26,  27  ;  return  to  Dogh 
Castle,  29  ;  killed,  30 

O'Dogherty,  Daniel,  16 

O'Dogherty,  Lady,  16;  surrenders, 
27 

O'Donnell,  Calvagh,  14 

O'Donnell,  Hugh  Roe,  12,  14; 
flight  to  Spain,  14,  60;  rebel- 
lion, 50 

O'Donnell,  Nachten,  25,  34,  50 

O'Donnell,  Neil  Garv,  9,  14  ;  char 
acter,  15;  arrested,  15,  29; 


896 


INDEX 


breaks  his  parole,    15 ;    evil  in- 
fluence on  Cahir  O'Dogherty ,  1 6 
division  of  the  spoil  at  Derry,  20 
seizes    the    Lifford    cattle,    21 
overtures  from  Sir  A.  Chichester 
25 ;     treacherous    conduct,    28 
trial,  33  ;   sent  to  the  Tower,  34 
death,  35 

O'Donnell,  Rory,  Earl  of  Tyrconnell 
15;  treasonable  plots,  15,  16 
flight,  15 

O'Donnell,  Shane  McManus  Oge, 
21,  27  ;  escape  to  Tory  Island, 
30,  31  ;  flight  to  Arran  Island,  32 

O'Gallagher,  Constable  of  Tory 
Island,  surrender,  32 

O'Hagan,  Cormac,  seizes  Money- 
more,  1 88  ;  victory  at  Garvagh, 
213;  humanity,  216;  killed, 
289 

O'Hagan,  Daniel,  202;  saves 
British,  248 

O'Hagan,  Shane,  in  charge  of  Castle 
Toome,  376  ;  surrender,  377  ; 
prisoner,  378  ;  execution,  379 

O'Hanlon,  Sir  Oghie,  9  ;  grant  of 
land,  52  ;  sale  of  Orior,  102 

O'Hanlon,  Oghie  Oge,  22 ;  sur- 
render, 33 

O'Hara,  Brian,  number  of  victims, 
255 

O'Hara,  Rory,  287 

O'Hara,  Toole  McHugh,  206 

O'Hugh,  Edmund,  imprisoned,  176 

O'Hugh,  Edmund  Boy,  kills  Lord 
Caulfield,  225 

Oldstone  Castle,  165,  205;  mas- 
sacre at,  206 

Omagh,  24,  185 

O'Mellan,  Friar,  vi 

O'More,  Rory,  plans  for  a  revolu- 
tion, 129.  See  Moore 

O'Muldoon,  Philip,  196 

O'Mullan,  Garny,  209 

O'Murphy,  Owen,  massacre  at 
Carrickmacross,  201 

O'Neil,  Alice,  207.     See  Antrim 

O'Neil,  Art  Oge,  killed,  307 

O'Neil,  Brian  Crossach,  59;  exe- 
cution, 60 

O'Neil,  Catherine,  240;  her  son, 
240 

O'Neil,  Con  Oge,  murdered,  289 

O'Neil,  Daniel,  371 

O'Neil,  Henry,  shelters  British, 
137,  192,  240,  243,  249 

O'Neil,  Colonel  Henry,  vi ;  "  Rela- 
tion," 250,  379 

O'Neil,  Sir  Henry  Oge,  9 


O'Neil,  Sir  Henry  Oge,  joins  forces 
at  Omagh,  24  ;  murdered,  26,  99; 
grant  of  land,  51,  98  ;  division 
of  his  lands,  99 

O'Neil,  Henry  Roe,  333  ;  charge  of 
cowardice,  377  ;  prisoner,  378  ; 
execution,  379 

O'Neil,  Neil  Modder,  massacre  of 
Armagh,  241  ;  in  charge  of  Dun- 
gannon,  286 ;  Constable  of  Charle- 
mont,  383 

O'Neil,  Nial,  surrender,  290;  at 
Charlemont,  290  ;  Constable  of 
Charlemont,  383 

O'Neil,  Owen  Roe,  interviewed  by 
Moore,  129;  lands  at  Lough 
Swilly,  253,  277  ;  serves  in  the 
Spanish  Army,  278;  Commander- 
in-Chief,  278;  horror  at  the  mas- 
sacres, 278  ;  temperament,  279  ; 
military  abilities,  279  ;  integrity, 
279  ;  reason  for  his  failure,  280, 
289,  372;  hostility  of  the  Su- 
preme Council,  280,  281,  372  ; 
position  of  subsidiary  ally,  284  ; 
patriotism,  285 ;  Governor  of 
Ulster,  285 ;  captures  Dun- 
gannon,  286  ;  defeated,  286,  288, 
340  ;  inaction,  287,  328  ;  force, 
288  ;  protest  against  the  Cessa- 
tion, 293  ;  at  Neath,  302  ;  declines 
to  take  a  subordinate  position, 
303 ;  illness,  307,  371  ;  at 
Charlemont,  307  ;  quarrel  with 
Castlehaven,  307  ;  ravages  of  his 
men,  324 ;  Captain-General  of 
the  Irish  forces  in  Ulster,  325  ; 
victory  of  Benburb,  326-328 ; 
withdraws  to  Leinster,  328  ;  re- 
lations with  the  Supreme  Council, 
329  ;  offer  from  Rinuccini,  329  ; 
captures  Roscrea,  330 ;  hatred 
of  Preston,  331  ;  siege  of  Dublin, 
331,  334  ;  retreat,  333  ;  captures 
Kells,  333  ;  sent  to  Connaught, 
335  ;  recalled,  337  ;  destruction 
of  food,  338 ;  charges  against, 
338  ;  deposed,  339  ;  withdraws 
to  Munster,  341  ;  proclaimed  a 
traitor,  342 ;  negotiations  with 
Jones  and  Ormonde,  359,  371  ; 
overtures  from  Coote,  360,  362  ; 
terms  with  Monck,  360,  362; 
loss  of  his  powder,  361  ;  retires 
to  Clones,  361  ;  entry  into  Deny, 
363 ;  death,  372 ;  character, 
372 

O'Neil,  Sir  Phelim,  character,  97  ; 
indebtedness  to  the  English  Gov- 


INDEX 


897 


eminent,  98 ;  restoration  of  lands, 
99 ;  forges  a  commission  from 
the  King,  116,  118,  383;  un- 
prepared to  seize  Deny,  130 ; 
seizes  Charlemont  Castle,  135 ; 
proclamation  at  Armagh,  1 36 ; 
captures  Mellif ont,  1 69 ;  mur- 
ders his  creditors,  1 75  ;  mean- 
ness, 177  ;  ineffective  protection 
of  the  British,  177;  attack  on 
Lisburn,  180  ;  defeated,  181,  191, 
229,  266  ;  rage  and  frenzy,  182, 
191,  192  ;  at  Strabane,  182,  266  ; 
attack  on  Augher,  192  ;  offer  to 
convoy  British  prisoners,  221  ; 
at  Charlemont,  267,  275  ;  house 
at  Kinard  burnt,  271  ;  at 
Brantry,  272  ;  fleet  of  boats  cap- 
tured, 273 ;  hatred  of  Owen 
Roe,  278;  marriage,  283,  382; 
flight,  378 ;  surrender,  381  ; 
hiding-place,  382 ;  captured,  382 ; 
execution,  383  ;  character,  383 

O'Neil,  Phelim  McArt  Brian,  mas- 
sacres convoy  of  British,  222 

O'Neil,  Phelim  McToole,  381 

O'Neil,  Phelim  Oge,  grant  of  land, 
25 

O'Neil,  Philip  McHugh,  treachery, 
382 

O'Neil,  Shane,  24,  97;  name  of 
his  fort,  112;  death,  130 

O'Neil,  Shane,  killed  at  Scarriff- 
hollis,  378 

O'Neil,  Tirlough  McArt,  9 

O'Neil,  Tirlough  McBrian,  243 

O'Neil,  Tirlough  Oge,  death,  52,  99 

O'Neil,  Tirlough  Oge,  97 ;  seizes 
Glasslough,  139 ;  Governor  of 
Armagh,  141,  238;  attack  on 
Antrim,  215 

Oneilan,  51 

O'Quin,  Neil  Oge,  seizes  Mount- 
joy,  135;  seizes  Lissan,  189; 
massacres,  215,  216;  flight, 
272 

O'Quin,  Tirlough  Grome,  massacre 
in  Blackwater  Church,  243 

O'Reilly,  Catherine  Oge,  kindness 
to  the  English,  157 

O'Reilly,  Edmund,  152  ;  chief  of 
Cavan,  55  ;  defeated  at  Crough- 
an,  154 

O'Reilly,  Hugh,  Genuine  History  of 
Ireland,  210 

O'Reilly,  Sir  John,  55 

O'Reilly,  Mulmore,  grant  of  land, 
55  ;  seizes  Farnham  Castle,  149 ; 
assault  on  Keilagh,  155 


O'Reilly,  Owen  McTirlough,  hu- 
manity, 152 

O'Reilly,  Philip,  at  Lough  Oughter 
Castle,  384  ;  pardoned,  384 

O'Reilly,  Philip  McHugh,  treatment 
of  the  British,  149-151  ;  indigna- 
tion at  the  massacres,  156,  158 

O'Reilly,  Philip  Mulmore,  killed, 
374 

O'Reilly,  Rose  ny  Neil,  brutal  char- 
acter, 156 

Orior,  52,  65 

Ormonde,  James,  Duke  of,  Com- 
mander-in-Chief  of  the  army, 
86,  230  ;  alliance  with  the  rebels, 
92  ;  advance  north,  229-232  ;  at 
Drogheda,  230  ;  return  to  Dub- 
lin, 231  ;  intrigues  with  the 
Irish,  231  ;  victory  at  Kilrush, 
275  ;  cessation  of  hostilities,  291  ; 
alliance  with  the  Supreme  Coun- 
cil, 292,  294,  329;  created 
Marquis,  293 ;  Lord-Lieut,  of 
Ireland,  293;  furnishes  Castle- 
haven  with  provisions,  304 ; 
difficulty  of  his  position,  318 ; 
defence  of  Dublin,  331  ;  refuses 
to  surrender,  332  ;  refuses  to 
admit  parliamentary  troops,  333  ; 
surrender,  334  ;  sails  for  Eng- 
land, 334  ;  lands  at  Cork,  348  ; 
assumes  control  of  the  Supreme 
Council  at  Kilkenny,  348,  358  ; 
characteristics,  358 ;  negotia- 
tions with  Owen  Roe,  359,  371  ; 
defeat  at  Rathmines,  363,  364  ; 
destruction  of  his  army,  365 

Ormsby,  Captain,  315 

O'Togher,  Philip,   155 

Oxford,  Convention  at,  309 ;  char- 
acter of  the  Irish  demands,  310  ; 
members  reassemble  in  Dublin, 
312,  318 


Pale,  Lords  of  the,  110;  relations 
with  the  Irish,  111  ;  neutrality, 
134  ;  join  the  rebels,  134 

Parker,  Edward,  prisoner,  152 

Parliamentary  troops,  refused  ad- 
mission to  Dublin,  333  ;  return 
to,  334 

Parsons,  Sir  William,  46;  Lord 
Justice,  78 

Paulett,  Sir  George,  Governor  of 
Deny,  13 ;  unpopularity,  14 ; 
lax  rule,  18;  killed,  19 

Paulett,  Lady,  19 ;  onboard  H.M.S. 
Tramontane,  27 


INDEX 


Pennington,  Charles,  10 

Perkins,  Captain,  135;  on  the 
number  massacred  at  Armagh, 
240,  242 

Perrot,  Sir  John,  on  the  evils  of  the 
tanistry  system,  101 

Petty,  Sir  William,  on  the  causes 
of  the  Rebellion  of  1641,  95  ;  on 
the  number  of  British  massacred, 
246 

Philadelphia  Papers,  58  n.,  100  n. 

Phillips,  Captain,  376 

Phillips,  Sir  Thomas,  grant  of  land, 
58 

Piggott,  Captain,  killed,  379 

Pike,  Roger,  "  Narrative,"  207,  235 

Ploughing  by  the  tail,  imposition 
of  a  fine,  49 

Plunket,  Colonel,  180 

Plunkett,  Nicholas,  President  of 
the  Supreme  Council,  283  ;  at 
the  Oxford  Convention,  309 

Ponsonby,  Major,  in  charge  of 
Dundalk,  370 

Portadown  Bridge,  massacres  at, 
198,  222  ;  number  drowned,  223 

Portlester,  Irish  victory  at,  290 

Portna,  massacre  at,  204 

PortneUigan,  98 

Poyntz,  Sir  Charles,  prisoner,  137  ; 
released,  234  ;  in  charge  of  Car- 
lingford,  261 

Prendagast,  J.  P.,  116 

Presbyterians,  Scottish,  settle  in 
Ireland,  67  ;  revolt,  72  ;  perse- 
cutions, 82  ;  refuse  to  take  the 
Oath  of  Supremacy,  83  ;  religious 
views,  84  ;  scheme  to  drive  out, 
87 ;  dislike  of  the  Parliament, 
343  ;  protest  against  the  execu- 
tion of  Charles  I,  349 

Preston,  Colonel  Sir  Thomas,  at 
Wexford,  282  ;  Commander-in- 
Chief  of  the  Leinster  army,  285  ; 
defeated,  286,  337  ;  hatred  of 
Owen  Roe,  331  ;  siege  of  Dublin, 
331,334;  retreat,  333  ;  captures 
Naas,  336 ;  raises  the  siege  of 
Trim,  336  ;  flight  to  Carlow,  337  ; 
Governor  of  Kilkenny,  337,  342 

Price,  Elizabeth,  evidence  on  the 
massacres,  109 ;  on  the  cruelty  of 
Irish  women,  178;  witnesses  the 
murder  of  her  five  children,  223, 
255  ;  cruel  treatment,  253 

Price,  Captain  Ruys,  murdered,  1 76, 
223 

Priests,  influence  on  the  massacres, 
219 


Pugh,  Ensign,  murdered,  135 
Puritans,  the,  revolt,  72 
Pynnar,  Captain  Nicholas,  Survey, 
40,  54,  55,  60 

Radclyffe,  Sir  George,  82,  83,  119; 
Straff  ord,  166n. 

Rathmines,  defeat  at,  363,  364 

Rawdon,  Sir  George,  at  Lisburn, 
181  ;  wounded,  182  ;  meeting  at 
Belfast,  301  ;  at  the  skirmish  of 
Dromore,  306 

Rawdon  Papers,  251,  262 

Reaper,  Captain,  killed,  373 

Redman,  Mrs.,  murdered,  145 

Redman,  Thomas,  hanged,  145 

Reeves,  Stephen,  murdered  by  boys, 
255 

Reid,  vi,  93  ;  History  of  the  Presby- 
terian Church,  77  n.,  82  n.,  83  n. 

Reid,  Paul,  137 

Relinquishment,  Act  of,  129 

Reynolds,  Colonel,  363 

Richelieu,  Cardinal,  assistance  to 
Ireland,  280,  282 

Ridgeway,  Sir  Thomas,  26  ;  pursues 
Sir  Cahir  O'Dogherty,  27  ;  sur- 
vey of  the  counties,  40 ;  pro- 
spectus, 43 

Rinuccini,  Giovanni,  Papal  Nun- 
cio in  Ireland,  322  ;  Treaty 
with  Glamorgan,  323 ;  Memoirs, 
324  n. ;  offer  to  Owen  Roe,  329  ; 
entry  into  Kilkenny,  330  ;  Presi- 
dent of  the  Council,  330  ;  rup- 
ture, 342 

Roberts,  Dr.,  Ulster  King  at  Arms, 
330 

Rochelle,  expeditions  to,  71 

Roe  Castle,  captured,  269 

Roe,  Sir  Francis,  30 ;  grant  of 
land,  53 

Roman  Catholic  Bishops,  General 
Assembly  of,  at  Kilkenny,  con- 
demnation of  the  massacres,  220, 
221 

Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  favour 
of  a  humane  revolution,  106,  107 

Roman  Catholics,  Irish,  "  Remon- 
strances," 309,  310 

Roper,  Sergeant- Major,   171 

Roscommon,  Plantation  of,  10 

Roscrea,  capture  of,  330 

Ross,  Captain,  arrested,  347 

Rowley,  Colonel  Edward,  165;  at 
Coleraine,  213  ;  defeated  at  Gar- 
vagh,  213  ;  killed,  214 

Ruchan  Lough,  382 

Rump  Parliament,  345 


INDEX 


399 


Rupert,  Prince,  victories,  321  ;    de- 
feated at  Marston  Moor,  321 
Rushworth,  John,  vi,  72,  93,  337 
Russell,  Sir  William,  55 
Ryves,  Captain,  150,  153 


S.  R.  Politician's  Catechism,  210 

St.  John,  Captain,  Constable  of  Tan- 
daragee,  escape,  137  ;  wounded, 
182 

St.  John,  Sir  Oliver,  43,  57  ;  Lord 
Deputy  of  Ireland,  65 

St.  Leger,  Sir  Anthony,  43 

St.  Leger,  Sir  William,  Sergeant- 
Major,  86 

Sandeford,  Constable  of  Charle- 
mont,  383 

Saunderson,  Colonel,  287  ;  relief  of 
Augher,  194 ;  occupies  Sligo, 
353  ;  ordered  to  rejoin  the  Lagan 
Force,  354  ;  abandons  the  siege 
of  Derry,  356  ;  killed,  374 

Scarriffhollis,  battle  of,  378 

Scarva  Bridge,  massacres  at,  125, 
222,  235,  239 

Scotland,  The  Solemn  League  and 
Covenant  with  England,  297 

Scots,  the,  revolution,  72  ;  modera- 
tion, 72  ;  exemption  from  the 
massacres  in  Ulster,  117,  118 

"  Servitors,"  41-43  ;    rents,  41,  75 

Sexton,  Sir  George,  183 

Shannoth  House,  massacre  at,  146 

Sheridan,  Denis,  153 

Shirley,  History  of  Monaghan,  253  n. 

Shrubhill,  battle  of,  267 

Sidley,  Sir  Ralph,  11 

Simpson,  Nicholas,  139,  178;  pri- 
soner, 220,  238  ;  on  the  massacre 
at  Armagh,  241,  242 

Sinclair,  Colonel,  at  Newry,  261 

Sinclair,  Lord,  regiment,  233  n. 

Skelton,  William,  198,  244 

Sligo,  siege,  315;  captured,  315; 
attempt  to  recapture,  353 

Sloper,  Captain,  killed  at  Scarriff- 
hollis, 378 

Smith,  Ann,  massacre  at  her  cot- 
tage, 123,  217  ;  escape,  217 

Smith,  Captain,  released,  234 

Somers's  Historical  Tracts,  92  n., 
113  n.,  264  n. 

Spence,  John,  murdered,  205 

Sperrin  Mountains,  268,  273 

Spottiswoode,  Sir  Henry,  137 

Staples,  Lady,  at  Moneymore  Castle, 
188 ;  account  of  the  massacre, 
216 


Staples,  Sir  Thomas,  grant  of  land, 
58  ;  desertion  of  his  wife,  188 

Stewart,  Sir  Alexander,  commands 
Lagan  Force,  350  ;  resignation, 
352  ;  killed,  352 

Stewart,  Archibald,  defence  force, 
165;  regiment,  203  ;  defeated  at 
Bundooragh,  214 

Stewart,  Henry,  fines  imposed  on, 
84 

Stewart,  Sir  Robert,  33 ;  Com- 
mander-in-Chief  of  the  Lagan 
Force,  44,  115,  187,  288  ;  ordered 
to  raise  a  regiment,  165,  185  ; 
at  Newtown,  186  ;  relief  of 
Ballykelly,  268;  of  Coleraine, 
269  ;  elected  Governor  of  Derry, 
289;  meeting  at  Belfast,  298, 
301  ;  regiment  takes  the  Cove- 
nant, 299  ;  march  to  Connaught, 
325 ;  at  Culmore  Fort,  347 ; 
arrested,  347  ;  escape,  352  ;  re- 
joins the  Lagan  Force,  352 

Stewart,  William,  murdered,  179 

Stewart,  Sir  William,  Castle  at  Kil- 
macrenan,  51  ;  achievements  of 
his  regiment,  166;  at  Raphoe, 
186  ;  leader  of  the  Lagan  Force, 
187 ;  regiment  takes  the  Cove- 
nant, 299 ;  at  the  Oxford  Con- 
vention, 309 

Strabane,  182,  266  ;    captured,  267 

Strabane,  Lady,  183 

Strafford,  Thomas,  Earl  of,  Lord- 
Lieutenant  of  Ireland,  67, 77 ;  exe- 
cution, 78,  87  ;  Preamble  to  the 
Subsidy  Act,  80 ;  amendment, 
81  ;  unpopularity,  81  ;  influ- 
ence on  the  linen  trade,  81  ; 
hostility  to  the  Scottish  Presby- 
terians, 82  ;  enforcement  of  the 
Black  Oath,  83  ;  recruiting  cam- 
paign, 86 ;  scheme  to  drive  out 
the  Presbyterians,  87  ;  criticism 
of  the  Irish,  103 

Stratford,  Anthony,  on  the  number 
massacred,  208,  224,  255;  on 
the  number  killed  at  Killyman, 
248 

Subsidies,  payment  of,  74,  76,  78 ; 
reduction,  129 

Swilly,  Lough,  13,  253,  277 


Taafe,  Lord,  raises  an  army,  294, 
315  ;  siege  of  Sligo,  315  ;  routed, 
315  ;  defeated  at  Knocknoness, 
338 

Taafe,  Thomas,  139 


27 


400 


INDEX 


Talbot,  Sir  Robert,  at  the  Oxford 
Convention,  309 

Tandaragee,  seized  by  the  rebels, 
137;  massacre  at,  238;  battle 
at,  287 

Tanistry  system,  98,  101 

Taylor,  Captain,  killed,  377 

Taylor,  Philip,  on  the  number 
drowned  at  Portadown,  224 

Taylor,  William,  222 

Temple,  Irish  Bebellion,  93,  94  n., 
129  n.,  133  n.,  152  n. 

Templepatrick,  massacres  at,  202, 
209  ;  number  killed,  212 

Tenure,  fixity  of,  45 

Thornton,  Col.  Robert,  Mayor  of 
Deny,  186,  288 ;  meeting  at 
Belfast,  298 

Tichborne,  Sir  Henry,  160  ;  Gover- 
nor of  Drogheda,  169  ;  defence, 
228  ;  captures  Dundalk,  232 

Tirkennedy,  54,  100 

Toome  Castle,  58  ;  capture  of,  376  ; 
recaptured,  377 

Tory  Island,  30,  31  ;   capture  of,  33 

Tramontane*,,  H.M.S.,  27 

Trevor,  Sir  Edward,  prisoner,  137  ; 
released,  234 

Trevor,  Lieut.,  236;  murdered,  237 

Trevor,  Colonel  Mark,  raid  at  Drog- 
heda, 228 ;  captures  ammuni- 
tion, 361  ;  Governor  of  Dundalk, 
362  ;  attack  at  Dromore,  370 

Trim,  British  victory  at,  275;  siege 
336 

Tuam,  Bishop  of,  killed,  316; 
document  discovered  on  his  body 
316,  322 

Tullahogue,  273 ;  massacre  at, 
248 

Tully  Castle,  massacre  at,  196 

Tulske,  capture  of,  315 

Turner,  Sir  James,  234  ;  Memoirs 
of,  195  n.,  234  n.,  236  n.,  261, 
276  n.,  286  n.,  296  n. 

Tutch,  Mr.,  236;  murdered  237 
250 

Tynan,  massacre  at,  244 

Tyrconnell,  Rory,  Earl  of,  flight 
3,  50,  60 

Tyringham,  Sir  Arthur,  Governor 
of  Newry,  escape,  137  ;  at  Lis- 
burn,  161,  180;  Belfast,  162 

Tyrone,  9,  64  ;  population,  6  ;  dis- 
tribution of  land,  51  ;  exter- 
mination of  the  British  in,  248 

Tyrone,  Hugh,  Earl  of,  flight,  3,  60, 
239  ;  submission,  3,  5  ;  rumours 
of  his  return,  22 


Ulster,  economic  conditions,  3 ; 
suspension  of  the  feudal  system, 
4  ;  increase  in  the  population,  5, 
63  ;  sale  of  lands,  7  ;  colonisa- 
tion policy,  8,  36  ;  British  colon- 
ists, 8,  37,  67  ;  hostile  influences, 
9 ;  the  six  escheated  counties, 
38 ;  removal  of  the  dominant 
chiefs,  39  ;  division  in  lots,  41  ; 
prospectus  for  the  acquisition  of 
land,  43  ;  commissioners,  43  ; 
unprofitable  lands,  44  ;  hostility 
of  the  chiefs,  46 ;  Plantation, 
result,  60,  62,  67  ;  adherence  to 
old  customs,  65 ;  law  against 
intermarriage,  67 ;  linen  trade, 
81  ;  Oath  of  Supremacy,  83,  85  ; 
number  of  British  massacred, 
247  ;  food  shortage,  295  ;  officers 
forbidden  to  take  the  Covenant, 
298;  conquest  of,  384 

Ulster  Journal  of  Archaeology,  143  n., 
146  n.,  181  n.,  207  n.,  235  n._ 
239  n.,  279  n. 

Undertakers,  41-43  ;    rents,  41,  75 

Upton,  Captain,  209 

Usher,  Captain,  prisoner,  370 

Usher,  Dr.,  Primate,  85 

Vane,  Sir  Henry,  114,  345 
Vaughan,    Captain,    surrenders    at 

Derry ,   19;    in  charge  of  Derry 

25,  30 
Vaughan,    Sir   John,    Governor   of 

Derry,  186,  266,  269  ;   death,  289 
Vaughan,  Sir  William,  killed,  364 
Veagh,  Lough,  27 
Venables,  Colonel,  363  ;    at  Newry, 

370  ;    skirmish  at  Dromore,  370  ; 

Governor  of  Ulster,  378  ;  siege  of 

Charlemont,  381 
Verney,  Sir  Edmund,  killed  at  the 

siege  of  Drogheda,  366 
Villiers,  Major,  taken  prisoner,  370 

Walsh,  Father,  on  the  massacres, 

126 

Wandesford,  Deputy  in  Ireland,  78 
Ward,  Luke,  hanged,  139 
Warner,  Ferdinando,  123 
Warr  of  Ireland,  202,  208  n.,  214  n. 

215  n.,  223,  224  n.,  248  n.,  264  n. 

273  n.,  274,  287  n.,   288,  289  n. 

294  n.,  302  n.,  328  n.,  333,  337  n. 

340  n.,  346,  353  n.,  373  n.,  375  n. 

376  n.,  377  n.,  381  n.,  382  n. 
Warren,  Colonel,  killed  at  the  siege 

of  Drogheda,  366 


INDEX 


401 


Waterdrum,  massacre  at,  146 

Watson,  Mr.,  murdered,  179 

Weir,  John,  298 

Wemys,  Sir  Patrick,  171,  361 

Wentworth,  Sir  Thomas,  67  ;  Lord- 
Deputy  of  Ireland,  75 ;  policy, 
75 ;  demands  subsidies,  76 ; 
created  Earl  of  Strafiord,  77 

Westmeath,  Earl  of,  taken  pri- 
soner, 337 

Western  Marches,  or  Borderlands, 
10 

Wexf  ord,  detention  of  war  material, 
281  ;  massacre  at,  368 

Whitelocke,  Memorials,  70  n., 
113  n.,  315  n.,  316  n.,  347  n., 


352  n.,  357  n.,  361  n.,  364  n., 
365  n.,  368  n.,  376  n.,  379  n. 

Whitfield,  Sir  Ralph,  77 

Whittaker,  Life  of  Badclyffe,  87  n. 

Whyte,  Captain,  Constable  of 
Charlemont,  383 

Windebank,  death,  87 

Winkfield,  Sir  Richard,  Marshal, 
joins  forces  at  Omagh,  24 ;  ad- 
vance on  Culmore,  25 

Wishaw,  Captain,  in  charge  of  Stra- 
bane,  267 

Wollard,  William,  murdered,  242 

"  Woodkerne,"  or  brigands,  47 

YeUowford,  battle  of,  55 


FEINTED  BY 

HA.ZELL,   WATSON  AND  VINET,  LD., 

LONDON  AND  AYLESBXJRY, 

ENGLAND. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


AU6101968 


AUG  I 


L9-Series  444 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000  029  499 


